Strictly speaking point two is not helpful. Because the suggestion is that Adam does in the Garden what priests do in the temple, but the aim of this article hinges on there being a difference between the garden and eden. To suggest that Eden apart from the Garden is the proto-temple would mean we have to find evidence Adam was a priest for Eden and not the Garden which is the opposite of what we see.

Could you provide more information on your exegesis of Eze 28 as referring to edam donning priestly attire (point 2). I’m sure you are aware that the vast majority of exegesis on this points sees it as referring in some way to the king of Tyre or to Satan.

John,

Thanks for your thoughts here. I would agree that the temple is better understood as a reconstruction of the garden. I was only trying to draw out the parallels in the post and not so much precisely define the relationship between the two. I like how G. K. Beale speaks of the tabernacle as “Eden Remixed.”

Also, regarding the sacrifices for sin, there is a soteriological element that is added following the fall, but the eschatological element present in Gen. 1-2 continues in the tabernacle and temple. Vos and Gaffin have made the point that eschatology precedes soteriology, which I think is helpful here. I’d commend Vos’ book The Eschatology of the Old Testament, particularly the chapter “Eschatology in Its Pre-Redemptive Stage.”

Was God providing skins meant to be propitiatory? In any case, I thought the Garden under discussion was pre fall and pre curse.

John,

There are sacrifices for sin in 3:21.

Tim,

Thanks for your questions and close reading of the post.

First, I’m saying that Eden was a geographical place distinguishable from the garden though it didn’t take the exact architectural form as the later tabernacle and temple. In that it was a real place it would have some architectural structure with God himself as its builder. It might be better to speak of all three (Eden, tabernacle, temple) more generally as “sanctuaries” for clarity. Also, I would put the emphasis on their functional similarity as unique dwelling places of God. Jesus is able to speak of himself as the temple (Jn. 2:19) for in him the fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9).

Second, I see Eden as the center based on Gen. 2:10, “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden,” which parallels the eschatological temple in which the river flows from the throne of God (Ezek. 47:1–12; Rev. 22:1–2). The throne is always centrally located (e.g., the ark of the covenant being in the Holy of Holies) . I see what you are saying though with Gen. 2:8. I guess I am weighing the biblical-theological parallel more than the preposition that can be more or less ambiguous. Eden is given primacy though even in 2:8 in that it preceded the garden.

Do you mean to claim that Eden was a temple in the sense of a physical building (“architectural construction”)? Or do you mean that Eden had the same functions as a temple, without actually having the same architectural form? Do you mean that Eden was not a geographical region?

The half of the comparison in point 10 which describes Eden, “Eden > Garden > Outer World,” would appear to indicate that Eden was in the Garden, but the text of scripture says the Garden was “in” Eden (via a beth preposition in Gen. 2:8). Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?