Tag Archives: set apart

Eden as Cosmic Temple, Cosmic Rebellion, and the Reversal of the Curse

Posted by expedition44 on

Introduction

The opening chapters of Genesis have traditionally been interpreted primarily as a narrative describing the origin of humanity and the fall of Adam and Eve. While this reading is not incorrect, it may be incomplete. Increasingly, scholars have recognized that Genesis 1–11 presents a much broader theological framework in which the story of humanity unfolds alongside a wider cosmic conflict involving both human and spiritual agents.¹ When read within the ancient Near Eastern context and the larger biblical narrative, the Garden of Eden appears not merely as a geographical location but as the primordial temple of creation, the sacred center where heaven and earth intersect.

Within this framework, Genesis 1–11 may be understood as the opening movement of a larger biblical drama—one that narrates a series of escalating rebellions that disrupt God’s intended order for creation. These rebellions involve both humanity and spiritual beings and culminate in the need for divine restoration. The New Testament ultimately portrays the work of Christ as the decisive reversal of this cosmic disorder, restoring humanity’s original vocation and reclaiming creation from the powers that had corrupted it.

Eden as the Cosmic Temple

A growing body of scholarship recognizes that the imagery surrounding Eden closely parallels the symbolism of later biblical temples.² The garden contains precious stones and gold, features rivers flowing outward from its center, and is guarded by cherubim following humanity’s expulsion.³ Ezekiel’s depiction of Eden further situates it upon the “mountain of God,” imagery frequently associated with sacred cosmic geography.⁴ These elements strongly suggest that Eden functions as the sanctuary of creation, the place where divine presence and human vocation converge.

Within this sacred environment, Adam appears to be commissioned with a priestly role. Genesis 2:15 states that Adam was placed in the garden “to work it and to keep it.” The Hebrew verbs ʿābad (“serve”) and šāmar (“guard”) later describe the duties of Levites serving in the tabernacle.⁵ This linguistic correspondence indicates that Adam’s task is not merely agricultural but priestly: he is appointed to guard sacred space and maintain the order of God’s sanctuary.⁶

The opening structure of Genesis has often been interpreted as recursive, with Genesis 1 providing a cosmic overview of creation and Genesis 2 retelling the story with a specific focus on Adam and Eve.⁷ However, the narrative can also be read sequentially, much like any other historical narrative. In this reading, Genesis 1 describes the creation of humanity in general terms while Genesis 2 focuses on the installation of Adam within the sacred environment of Eden.

Under this interpretation, Adam may be understood as the first human placed within God’s cosmic temple, while humanity more broadly inhabits the wider earth. One might describe this broader human realm—borrowing Tolkien’s evocative language—as the “lower earth,” the ordinary sphere of human habitation outside the sanctuary of Eden. Adam is then placed within the garden as humanity’s representative priest within sacred space.

Humanity Beyond Eden and the Creation of Eve

Reading Genesis in this narrative manner offers a possible resolution to several tensions within the early chapters of Scripture. After the murder of Abel, Cain fears retaliation from others and subsequently establishes a city.⁸ Such details imply the presence of a broader human population beyond Adam’s immediate family.

Within this framework, the creation of Eve may be understood not as the creation of the second human in existence but as the creation of a suitable partner within the sacred environment of Eden. The text emphasizes that no suitable helper was found for Adam among the animals, not necessarily that no other humans existed elsewhere. Eve therefore functions as Adam’s partner within his priestly vocation inside the garden. This interpretation preserves Adam’s unique role as the first human placed within sacred space while allowing for the presence of humanity outside the garden.

Genesis 1–11 as the Narrative of Cosmic Rebellion

When read together, Genesis 1–11 may be understood as a narrative describing a series of escalating rebellions that disrupt God’s intended order for creation. The fall in Eden introduces disobedience within sacred space. Genesis 6 describes divine beings transgressing their proper boundaries and corrupting humanity. The Tower of Babel narrative portrays humanity once again challenging divine authority.

These events align closely with what many scholars have described as the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, in which the nations of the earth become associated with spiritual powers following Babel while Israel remains under the direct authority of Yahweh.⁹ Within this framework, the primeval history depicts both human and spiritual rebellion unfolding together.

From this perspective, the fall of Adam and Eve may coincide with the corruption of a divine challenger figure—often identified with ha-śāṭān—who oversteps his role within the divine council. The Eden narrative therefore may represent a dual fall: the failure of humanity’s priestly representatives and the simultaneous corruption of a cosmic adversary.

This possibility also opens the door for reconsidering the chronological placement of the Book of Job within the primeval narrative (several scholars have noted Job and Song of Solomon to be ordered within Genesis 1-2). If the adversarial figure in Job is understood as functioning in a legitimate challenger role within the divine council, the events of Job could plausibly occur prior to the events of Eden, portraying the challenger in a pre-fall state and perhaps within the sphere of ordinary human life—what might be described as the “lower earth,” the broader realm of humanity outside the sacred garden. Such a framework naturally raises an important theological question concerning the place of sin in the unfolding story. Was sin first introduced through the failure of Adam and Eve within Eden, or could forms of moral disorder have already existed within the wider human world beyond the garden? The language of Romans 5:12 need not require that Adam be the first being to sin in any conceivable realm of creation; rather, Paul’s argument could center on Adam as the representative head through whom sin and death enter the human order in a covenantally decisive way. Within this temple framework, Adam’s failure within sacred space marks the moment when sin becomes universally determinative for humanity, even if rebellion may have already existed elsewhere in creation.

A further interpretive consideration concerns the meaning of the term Adam itself. In the Hebrew Scriptures, ʾādām often functions not strictly as a proper name but as a collective term referring to humanity or humankind more broadly. When Paul draws upon Adam in Romans 5:12, his argument is framed in corporate and representative terms, contrasting the fate of humanity “in Adam” with the new life offered “in Christ.” Within this framework, Adam may be understood not merely as an isolated individual but as the representative embodiment of humanity itself. Such a reading emphasizes Paul’s theological point: that sin and death enter the human order through humanity’s representative head, just as righteousness and life are restored through the representative work of Christ.

The Problem of Spiritual Powers in the Old Testament

One of the central tensions of the Old Testament emerges from this cosmic conflict. Humanity was created to function as God’s royal priesthood, mediating divine presence and extending God’s rule throughout creation.¹⁰ Yet throughout Israel’s history, humanity repeatedly abandons this vocation.

The biblical narrative frequently attributes this corruption not only to human disobedience but also to the influence of hostile spiritual powers. These powers appear repeatedly throughout the Old Testament narrative, drawing humanity away from its intended role and contributing to the persistent cycle of rebellion that characterizes the biblical story.

Christ and the Reversal of the Curse

The New Testament presents the work of Jesus as the decisive resolution to this cosmic conflict. The ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ are portrayed not only as the redemption of humanity but also as the defeat of the rebellious spiritual powers that had corrupted creation.

Some scholars have described this victory as a Christus Victor event, in which Christ triumphs over the hostile powers and reclaims authority over creation.¹¹ In this sense, the work of Christ may be understood as the moment in which God begins reversing the curse introduced in the primeval rebellions.

This theme is symbolically reinforced in the geographical setting of several events in Jesus’ ministry. The region of Bashan, historically associated with the domain of rebellious spiritual beings and the traditions surrounding Mount Hermon, becomes the setting for Jesus’ declaration that “the gates of Hades will not prevail.”¹² Within this framework, the cross and resurrection represent the decisive reversal of the cosmic disorder that began in the earliest chapters of Genesis.

Through Christ’s victory, the powers are subdued, the authority of the adversary is broken, and humanity’s original vocation is restored. The temple of God is no longer confined to a geographic sanctuary but is reconstituted in the people of God themselves, who once again become a royal priesthood called to mediate God’s presence in the world.

Conclusion

When Genesis 1–11 is read within the broader biblical narrative, the early chapters of Scripture appear to describe far more than the origin of human sin. They depict the opening stage of a cosmic conflict involving both humanity and spiritual powers. Within this framework, Eden functions as the sacred center of creation, where humanity is installed as priestly representatives of God’s rule.

The rebellion that unfolds within these chapters involves both human disobedience and the corruption of spiritual beings who seek to undermine God’s order. Yet the biblical story does not end with this cosmic disorder. The New Testament presents the work of Christ as the decisive turning point in which the curse is reversed, the powers are subdued, and humanity’s original vocation is restored.

Thus the story that begins in Eden ultimately finds its resolution in Christ, who reclaims creation, restores God’s temple among his people, and establishes once again the royal priesthood that humanity was always intended to be.

Footnotes

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 287–293.

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015), 23–28.

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 72–74.

G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 66–80.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Dallas: Word, 1987), 61–63.

Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 67–70.

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015), 92–95.

Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC; Nashville: B&H, 1996), 188–190.

Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 238–240.

Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 255–258.

G. K. Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 81–90.

Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor (London: SPCK, 1931), 20–22.

Baptizing in the Jordan

Posted by expedition44 on

Today I (with help from my wife, Krista) had the incredible privilege of baptizing my good friends Mike and Gabby. Ironically, I just wrote a post on soteriology and baptism. If you haven’t read that, I would start there.

We haven’t always known where exactly Jesus was baptized. We don’t know where Eden was, or exactly where the ark landed, and this isn’t much different. The baptism of Jesus, the ritual purification of Jesus with water by John the Baptist, was a major event described in the three synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark and Luke).[1] It is considered to have taken place at what is modernly referred to as Al-Maghtas (also called Bethany Beyond the Jordan), located in Jordan. Al-Maghtas is Arabic: المغطس, al-Maġṭas, which means  ‘baptism’ or ‘immersion’, officially known to most (and on Google Earth and mentioned in the Bible) as the Baptism Site “Bethany Beyond the Jordan”, it is an archaeological World Heritage Site in Jordan, on the east bank of the Jordan River, reputed to be the location of the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and venerated as such since at least the Byzantine period.[2] To be clear the exact location has changed due to recent archaeological finds.[3] This area includes two principal archaeological areas: the later remnants of a monastery on a mound originally known and believed to be Elijah’s Hill as a hermit dwelling.[4] The two areas are connected by a small stream that goes by John’s name.[5]

John anticipated a messianic figure greater than himself;[6] in the Gospels, he is portrayed as the precursor or forerunner of Jesus.[7] According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus himself identifies John as “Elijah who is to come”,[8] which is a direct reference to the Book of Malachi (Malachi 4:5),[9] as confirmed by the angel who announced John’s birth to his father, Zechariah.[10] According to the Gospel of Luke, John and Jesus were relatives.[11,12]

Some scholars think that John belonged to the Essenes, a semi-ascetic Jewish sect who expected a messiah and practiced ritual baptism.[13][14] John used baptism as the central symbol or sacrament[15] of his pre-messianic movement. Most biblical scholars agree that John baptized Jesus,[16][17] and several New Testament accounts report that some of Jesus’s early followers had previously been followers of John.[18] According to the New Testament, John was sentenced to death and subsequently beheaded by Herod Antipas around AD 30 after John rebuked him for divorcing his wife and then unlawfully wedding Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip I. Josephus also mentions John in the Antiquities of the Jews and states that he was executed by order of Herod Antipas in the fortress at Machaerus.[18]

The Gospel of Mark introduces John as a fulfillment of a prophecy from the Book of Isaiah (in fact, a conflation of texts from Isaiah, Malachi and Exodus but that’s another post)[19] about a messenger being sent ahead, and a voice crying out in the wilderness. John is described as wearing clothes of camel’s hair, and living on locusts and wild honey. John proclaims baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, and says another will come after him who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

The fourth gospel describes John the Baptist as “a man sent from God” who “was not the light”, but “came as a witness, to bear witness to the light, so that through him everyone might believe”.[20] John confirms that he is not the Christ nor Elijah nor ‘the prophet’ when asked by Jewish priests and Pharisees; instead, he described himself as the “voice of one crying in the wilderness”.[20]

The Gospels vary in their depiction of John’s relationship to Elijah. Matthew and Mark describe John’s attire in a way reminiscent of the description of Elijah in 2 Kings 1:8, who also wore a garment of hair and a leather belt. In Matthew, Jesus explicitly teaches that John is “Elijah who was to come” (Matthew 11:14 – see also Matthew 17:11–13); many Christian theologians have taken this to mean that John was Elijah’s successor. In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist explicitly denies being Elijah. In the annunciation narrative in Luke, an angel appears to Zechariah, John’s father, and tells him that John “will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,” and that he will go forth “in the spirit and power of Elijah.”[21]

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:

What “set apart” John was that he reminded people of Elijah. Did you ever wonder what that meant? I guess I just gave you a bunch of clues! Elijah was most significant as to have led a school of prophets known as “the sons of the prophets.”[22] Following Elijah’s ascension, his disciple and devoted assistant Elisha took over as leader of this school. After the time of Elisha Israel strayed and although rabbinical training excelled, the schools became very different from what Elijah had established. John was seeking to bring back the idea of living a life completely “SET APART” (Kadosh purification language) as to make way for the king. This is often overlooked particularly in western Evangelical Christianity, and it is very important. You see Jesus came to “complete” or align all things back to the intentions of the father. Jesus continues to call 12 disciples completely out of their former lives and accept new sacrificial lives totally committed to Him. He was the great example shepherded unto them. Jesus also embodies the example of being met by the spirit and later sending it to all who accept and are anointed and/or commissioned in this same way. He was baptizing those that radically sought to do the same; to completely give their life to the pursuant of devotionally following the Way of Jesus, the coming king. As I have made the point several times, we don’t baptize into this calling any longer. It has once again become lost as it had before John’s time. My prayer is that we will return to baptizing those ready to give their lives into complete devotion in allegiance to the king, leaving everything to follow Him.

WORKS CITED:

  1. The Gospel of Matthew by Daniel J. Harrington 1991 ISBN 0-8146-5803-2 p. 63
  2.  Bethany beyond the Jordan https://www.baptismsite.com/ Archived 2024-12-04 at the Wayback Machine on baptismsite.com, accessed February 2025
  3. Baptism Site “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” (Al-Maghtas) – UNESCO World Heritage Centre”. UNESCO. Archived from the original on 19 January 2017. Retrieved February 2025
  4. Tharoor, Ishaan (July 13, 2015). “U.N. backs Jordan’s claim on site where Jesus was baptized”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 10, 2018.
  5. Funk, Robert W. & the Jesus Seminar (1998). The Acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper. “Mark”, pp. 51–161.
  6.  Meier, John (1994). Mentor, Message, and Miracles (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2). Vol. 2. Anchor Bible. ISBN 978-0-385-46992-0.
  7. “Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 11:14 – New King James Version”. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019.
  8. Malachi 4:5–6
  9. “Bible Gateway passage: Luke 1:17 – New King James Version”. Bible Gateway. Archived from the original on 2 June 2007.
  10. “Bible Gateway passage: ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 1:36 – SBL Greek New Testament”. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019.
  11. “NETBible: Luke 1”. Archived from the original on 24 July 2020.
  12. Harris, Stephen L. (1985). Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. p. 382
  13. Marshall, I. H.; Millard, A. R.; Packer, J. I., eds. (1988). “John the Baptist”. New Bible Dictionary (Third ed.). IVP reference collection. ISBN 978-0-85110-636-6.
  14. Edward Oliver James, Sacrament in Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 20 May 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/515366/sacrament 
  15. Croll, Charles (2019). John the Baptist: A Biography. Malcolm Down Publishing. pp. 127–149. ISBN 978-1-912863-15-0.
  16. Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee. Mark Allan Powell, published by Westminster John Knox Press, p. 47 “Few would doubt the basic fact…Jesus was baptized by John”
  17. Harris, Stephen L. (1985) Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield John 1:36–40
  18. Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, 5, 2 
  19. Carl R. Kazmierski, John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist (Liturgical Press, 1996) p. 31.
  20. John 1:6–8, John 1:19–23, Isaiah 40:3
  21. Luke 1:16–17
  22.  2 Kings 2:3

NATURAL ORDER

Posted by expedition44 on

I want to talk about what is meant by God’s order, but before I do that, I want to guide you through a brief exegetical teaching through the text. When you hear the word order in relation to a biblical sense we have been conditioned to think about creation, law, hierarchy in the church and marriage, and perhaps even church discipline. Although it encompasses those things, I find it unfortunate that we start there, and therefore I feel we might need some deconstruction to get to good.

In the morning, O Lord, You will hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch. Psalm 5:3 NASB

As I begin to read this in Hebrew the first thing that I notice in contrast to most English translations is the phrase “My prayer” is not found in the text. It isn’t a bad translation as I get the context leans that way but in Hebrew the verse better reads, “I will order toward you” which emphasizes a slightly different posture. Interesting the word prayer isn’t really there, perhaps a NT implication or even insertion. Prayer in the OT was a bit different than the way we understand it today. It was communal and far less personal (unless God appeared to you in a bush and orally spoke directly to you), after Jesus ascends to the throne and sends the Spirit to dwell in us and intercede, the biblical concept of prayer takes on a different form than what it had been considered over the last 2000 years or more. The way people thought of “prayer” in the OT may or may not be accurate. Are we just reading what they thought prayer was supposed to be perhaps based on what they knew of their former deities? Is this something that they got a bit off track with and Jesus sought to adjust or shed new light on? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Maybe our prayer should take a cue from the OT notions. When we read this verse in Hebrew form, we see that David isn’t talking about ritualistic prayer, or is he? He isn’t necessarily folding his hands and closing his eyes – but he is sort of. He is making a statement that if his life is in alignment with what is of God – TOV (creation order language), then he expects God to acknowledge and “DO THINGS” on his behalf. This may tie into the never-ending OT grappling over whether God was retributive or not, but it certainly had the trajectory of demonstrating the idea of devotion in connection to intimacy with the Lord. This connection over the years will then be attributed to the conjecture of relationship with the father in prayer. Some prayer is communal and some is personal.

Different people interact with God differently and perhaps in different seasons. Some say they don’t hear God and others act like God never stops screaming in their ear. How can the voice of God differ from person to person? Is it based on the posture of the heart, covenant faithfulness, gifting, seasons, understanding, choice, some sort of prejudice, or something completely different that is higher than our understanding? I believe that God is just that dynamic. I don’t know why He communicates differently to people and what it might be based on; I don’t always have the eyes of God. I believe Him to be Sovereign and know significantly more than we do in a much more complex grid. I am convinced that there are many things that influence this covenant relationship at a cosmic level. It is far bigger than simply me, and to think of my relationship with God (the creator of the universe) as doating on my every thought seems like a selfish notion. Does that view minimize a personal relationship or exemplify it?

God’s order is described in everything naturally defined by Yahweh and described generally as what is good (TOV). This is creation, the waters, the counting of the ark, the building of the temple, the pieces of firewood set in order for a sacrificial fire, showbread set out in two rows of six cakes on the gold table (Lev 24:8); seven altars set up by the pagan mantic Balaam (Num 23:4); stalks of flax arranged by Rahab for hiding the spies (Josh 2:6); a table prepared for dining (Ps 23:5; Isa 21:5); words produced for speaking (Job 32:14); a legal case developed for presentation (Job 13:18); etc. In II Sam 23:5 David exults in the covenant granted him by Yahweh, “for he has made with me an everlasting covenant, / ordered (ʿărûkâ) in all things and secure.[1] We see God’s order in many ways, but the common thread that binds seems to be that it is given as a framework for our devotion to Him. This intimate devotion that is often described as reading or memorizing scripture, devotional repetition, standards of practice and living, and so much more are all described as what it means to be defined as SET APART. That we are defined and claimed as part of God’s order not the chaos of the world.

What defines this? Covenant. Covenant is the secure, accessible, and recognizable attribute of everything good that God offers to us. It is the basis of all of our interaction with the LORD. Without covenant we are detached or separated from the creator and his ways. When David chooses every morning to be in order, he is making a statement about the balance of life and the posture of the heart. The Hebrew term בְּרִית bĕriyth for “covenant” is from a root with the sense of “cutting”, because pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice.[2] It meant something deep.

The New Covenant is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah and often thought of as an eschatological world to come related to the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God. Generally, Christians believe that the New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment.[3] A connection between the Blood of Christ and the New Covenant is portrayed with the saying: “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”. Jesus is therefore the mediator of this New Covenant, and that his blood, shed is the required blood of the covenant. This is true looking back in both testaments and can be seen in all of the biblical covenants of the bible.

In the Christian context, this New Covenant is associated with the word ‘testament‘ in the sense of a ‘will left after the death of a person (Latin testamentum),[4] the original Greek word used in Scripture being diatheke (διαθήκη) which in the Greek context meant ‘will (left after death)’ but is also a word play having a dual meaning of ‘covenant, alliance’.[5] This notion implies a reinterpreted view of the Old Testament covenant as possessing characteristics of a ‘will left after death’ placing the old covenant, brit (בְּרִית) into a new application of understanding as revealed by the death, resurrection, ascension, and throning of CHRIST THE KING, JESUS. All things will forever connect at the covenants and be defined by the atoning accomplishments that transform into a covenant of eternity.

Order today might be better understood as a continually evolving algorithm based on the posture of your covenant faithfulness which, as I have described, is defined by many facets of devotion. Some may hear the audible voice of God more clearly while others simply see Him in every image. The revelation of God to us isn’t in a form of hierarchy. One form of transcendence doesn’t trump another. Who are we to judge anyway. But I do know that most of Christianity seems to be off course here. Rather than coming to the LORD as the cosmic wish granting genie in a bottle, let’s get back to biblical roots and think more covenantal and devotional based on the order that God modeled for us.

[1] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 696). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Strong’s Concordance (1890).

[3] “Comparison of the two covenants mediated by Moses and the two covenants mediated by Jesus”. 25 September 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-09-28. Retrieved 2023-01-29.

[4]“testamentum: Latin Word Study Tool”. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

[5] G1242 – diathēkē – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (KJV)”. Blue Letter Bible. Retrieved 2020-08-12.