James Jordan's Garden Sanctuary...

Presbyterian Teaching Elder at large James Jordan is known for his, shall we say, "creative" Scriptural insights. I heard a man observe once that what Jordan gets right he gets astonishingly right, and you won't find anybody else today saying it. But he does go wrong at times, and when he does it's usually cringe worthy. Having never read Jordan for myself, I didn't know exactly what this meant. But the comment left me simultaneously curious, and more than a little nervous.

Yesterday, then, I took up Jordan's Theses on Worship and began tentatively to read. Since the doctrine of the Sabbath has been the dominant topic of our Pastors College Theology of Worship class for the past several weeks, I turned initially to Jordan's Thesis 17—"Worship takes place on the Day of the Lord" (You can learn a lot about a man from his Sabbaterianism, I find). Four paragraphs in, I came across this little gob smacker concerning Adam and Eve's relationship to the Garden of Eden. I quote it here for our readers to critique.

After reminding us how our first parents were created at the end of a rather busy and "very good" Day Six, Jordan writes,

"Adam and Eve did not start life in the outer world, the place of work, nor did they start life in the land of Eden, their home. Rather, they started in the Garden of Eden, the sanctuary, the place of worship. At the center of the sanctuary were two special trees, marking the place where God would meet with them for worship on the Lord's Day." (Emphasis mine).

Whoa. Did you catch that? Jordan believes the Garden was Adam's temple, not his home—the place where he met to worship his Creator. If there's any merit to this reading of Genesis 1-2, then it would have far reaching implications for the theology of worship. 

Now, if this reading seems to introduce a difficulty for our understanding of the words, "God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it," (Genesis 2:15), at the same time it resolves a greater interpretational snag inherent in the traditional Garden-home view: that Adam and Eve are commanded to "fill the earth, and subdue it," are given dominion over "every living thing that moves on the earth," and for food, "every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth" (Genesis 1:28-29). It's entirely possible, then, based on the global language of the Creation Mandate, to say the Garden was not the limit of Adam's responsibility and movement, right? And if not the perimeter of his life, then perhaps not even his home. And if not his home, then what was the role of the Garden in Adam's life? Jordan's answer: the Garden was Adam's temple, the place of his Seventh Day worship.  

I'll admit to finding Jordan's idea appealing. It would seem to provide a more natural link between the pattern of worship pre- and post-Fall. But given the novelty of this view, I'm wondering what you, our readers, think. If you have any insight, criticism, or historical support to offer on this point, please leave it in the comments below.

Jordan, by the way, is not a Sabbatarian; at least not in the classic Puritan sense. 

Jody Killingsworth (BDiv, MPhil) serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington as Pastor for Worship and Liturgy. He is a lecturer at Clearnote Pastors College and frontman for the Good Shepherd Band.

Comments

I'm uncomfortable with that idea, not for any theological reasons, but because it's just new to me. My question is, why would Adam want to live anywhere else than in the garden? God used to walk with Adam in the garden and enjoy fellowship with him there. He was in constant fellowship with him in his sinless state. And God said they could eat from any tree in the garden. This would imply that the garden is where they lived, and not somewhere the couple would return to from their life in the outside world to gather fruit from. The command to cultivate it and keep the garden also sounds like a full-time job, not part time. The work of filling and subduing the earth was to begin in the garden and spread outwards. Why would Adam and Eve have children anywhere else? I think this is the most natural way of understanding it. James Jordan mentions the center of the sanctuary, the two trees, where God would meet with them for worship. I don't think that's in the Bible. Also, all the work Adam ever did is recorded as being in the Garden. Naming animals, etc. Nothing implies that they would have ever left the garden. Maybe Adam would have ventured outside of the garden from time to time (this is me speculating), but the garden would always be their home. To leave would be an anomaly, an exception, rather than the norm - like when they got thrown out. I think Jordan's way of thinking about it is unnatural and forced - like he's been thinking about it way too much. 

Jordan's view isn't too unique. G. K. Beale makes the same arugment in his book "The Temple and the Church's Mission." I found a PDF version of the particular chapter online and I think that Beale's argument is very convincing. Exegetically speaking, Beale's argument depends heavily upon Ezekiel 28:11-19 where the garden is dealt with as if it were a temple.

Sigh. Forgive the typos. 

Thanks, Michael. I've had Beale's book on my shelf for a while now, and this motivates me to read it. 

I've just read some Peter Leithart, who makes a similar case; that Adam and Eve met God in the garden, on the Sabbath, to worship Him. I think there's a solid case for it, and it has some interesting ramifications. It makes sense that there would be some continuity between between pre- and post-fall worship.

I haven't read JBJ's Theses on Worship, but would recommend his Biblical Horizons No. 86 & No. 87, "Liturgical Man, Liturgical Women" Part 1 & Part 2. I have read mounds of JBJ, but I think those two articles provide an excellent highlevel introduction to his thoughts on the nature of the Liturgical Creation.

I am unimpressed and unconvinced. When I first read about this, I wondered if Jordan's speculation wasn't influenced by the appearance of the Tree of Life in Revelation 21, except that seems to be 12 trees rather than one. Additionally, Revelation 21:22 says there is no temple in the New Jerusalem, since "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Nevertheless, the original audience of the Genesis is the generation of Jews who came out of Egypt at the Exodus. They knew what a temple was. They knew what a garden was. If Moses is relating to them narrative about the beginnings of all things and he stipulates that God planted a garden, they are not going to think of a temple. They know the difference between the two. So do we.

As far as Beale and Ezekiel ... same thing. "Treated like a temple?" What is that supposed to mean?

 

I didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here...

Thank you men for your work and for this music, it is truly a blessing and keeps me grounded and focused on Christ and the cross.

love,

Add new comment