is not only the origin of ’ādām, but it is also the origin of everything that makes his existence enjoyable and prosperous – it signals to the reader the blissful conditions of residence in Eden. Man would perform his function of exercising dominion in a place that was aesthetically pleasing, all while being sustained by good food (2:9). Yet, within the garden are two conspicuous trees that God created from the ‘adãmāh`; they are the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The “tree of life” would give
’ādām immortality, and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” would give ’ādām access to counsel with God.
At this point in the account, the word ‘adãmāh` serves as the hinge upon which the ontological potential of ’ādām is caricaturized and serves as the mechanism which moves him towards bliss.32 Yet, existential bliss is contingent upon whether or not ’ādām will remain content with God’s garden gift and its suited restrictions. If he is discontent, and acts upon it, then he will lose access to the garden and its assets. Hypothetically, upon losing these resources, humanity’s ontological potential would go unfulfilled.
Genesis 2:15-17: The Contingency of Realized Human
2:5, the ’ādām “works” (‘bd) the ‘adãmāh` in order to produce plants for the animals to consume (2:5), and in 2:15, the ’ādām is put in the garden to “work” (‘bd) it. Thus, there is a lexical link between the two passages. Beyond this, the ‘adãmāh` is also the origin of all that is pleasing to the eye and good for food, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9), both of which appear in 2:16-17. So then, the responsibility to “work” (‘bd) the ‘adãmāh`, as well as these gifts from the ‘adãmāh`, remain as categories which will lend expression to the divine image and likeness of the
’ādām. But that is not all; moving forward, these two categories will share an
interdependent relationship, where the gifts of the ‘adãmāh` must be stewarded properly by ’ādām so that he can successfully work the ‘adãmāh`.
The verb pair of “work” and “keep” in 2:15 is seen elsewhere in the Torah to depict either “serving” and “obeying” God’s word, or a Levite who “keeps” the “service”
of the tabernacle.34 Since Moses used this word pairing later to convey managing a sacred space, man’s activity in 2:15 should be understood similarly. His gardening is more than meets the eye; he is managing a garden-temple by maintaining its order and purity in contrast to the outside disorder and uncleanliness. Moreover, this garden management is the means to accomplishing a global enterprise - one that is revealed in 1:28; “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion.”35 If 2:15 is an
expansion of what is observed in 2:5, and Genesis 1 is a parallel account to Genesis 2, where both are describing the same event from a different vantage point, then it is reasonable to conclude that the activity of “working and keeping” in 2:15 and tilling the soil in 2:5 is synonymous with exercising dominion and subduing the earth in 1:28. With this telic vision attached to the duty of ’ādām over the ‘adãmāh`, it reasons to conclude
34 Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 81.
35 John H. Walton, Genesis: From Biblical Text to Contemporary Life, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 174.
that the boundaries of the garden are extended by cultivating (“work,” 2:15) the ground while maintaining its purity and integrity through guarding (“keep,” 2:15).36 The purpose of this enterprise is that the entire earth would be the venue of God’s fellowship with
’ādām, with all creation and creatures thriving under humanity’s regal care.37 With this in mind, the man’s function over the ‘adãmāh` is the critical component to God’s enterprise in 1:28.
Yet, there is one more component to this garden-expansion enterprise; ’ādām does so in obedience to God. This is another iteration, albeit a heightened iteration, of the partnership already evidenced between ’ādām and God. Previously, this partnership is observed through man’s gardening the ‘adãmāh` alongside God’s rain upon the ‘adãmāh`
to bring about food for the animals (2:5-6). It is also observed through the resources which God makes to spring from the ‘adãmāh`, which enable ’ādām to fulfill his dominion task (2:8-9). Now, this partnership reaches its epitome in the relationship
’ādām has to the tree of knowledge of good and evil which comes from the ‘adãmāh`
(2:9). If ’ādām trusts God’s sovereign partnership at the tree of knowledge, then he will retain access to God’s presence, to the tree of life, and succeed in his enterprise (1:28).
This will ensure the fulfillment of his ontological potential, and he will experience bliss.
If ’ādām breaks trust, then he will “surely die” (2:17).38
36 It is plausible that as the boundaries of the garden extend outward, God would continually cause to grow other trees which bear fruit, which are pleasing to the eye and good for food, and possibly even other trees of life and trees of knowledge. Adam does not contribute to the existence of these trees – they are God’s project alone, which could progress in correspondence with the garden’s boundary.
37 Walton, Genesis, 186. This conclusion is verified by later OT authors’ anticipation of world- wide subjugation and divine covering (Hab. 2:14; Is. 11:9, 45:18; Ps 8).
38 Death does not primarily refer to ’ādām perishing, it primarily refers to the felt experience of life apart from God’s presence and favor. Brueggemann says, “This is not a reflection on death, but on the troubled, anxiety-ridden life.” Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1982), 41, Kindle. This is confirmed by Genesis 3:24, where God drives the human pair out of the garden and keeps them from the tree of life. They do not immediately die, but they lose access to the provisions that would allow their divine image and likeness to reach their full potential. Outside the garden, away from the tree of life, they would not have access to God’s presence and favor, and they would no longer have opportunity for immortality.
So then, ontological realization and existential bliss is contingent upon Adam’s dynamic with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is critical, then, to understand the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a place where God would judicially announce his will and order.39 In searching the OT for a verb preceding the two nouns “good” and “evil,” there are several instances where this formula appears. Synthesizing these instances together conveys the idea that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a place of judicial decree.
In 1 Kings 3:9, Solomon asks God for an understanding mind to govern Israel and discern between “good” (tôb) and “evil” (rà’). Later, after Solomon demonstrates his judicial wisdom, Israel “perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice” (1 Kings 3:28). To judge between good and evil is thus understood to be a divine
characteristic.40 This same concept is repeated in 2 Samuel 14:17, where David is told that he is like a messenger of God “to discern good and evil.” It appears that the insight David has is understood as an extension of the divine. In both instances, the king’s judgement is understood as the decision of God.41 To add, “good (tôb) or bad (rà’)” is used in the judicial setting of 2 Samuel 13:22, where Absalom’s refuses to prosecute Amnon.42 Furthermore, the interpreter can observe the judicial sense of this phrase in
39 W. Malcom Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88, no. 3 (1969): 266-278.
40 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
267-68.
41 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
269.
42 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
274. Other references could be Isaiah 5:20, where the terms “good” and “evil” refer to a judge’s decision; 1 Kings 22:18, where the terms “good” and “evil” refer to a prophet’s affirming or discouraging oracle concerning the outcome of a battle; Jeremiah 42:6 where the terms “good” and “evil” refer to God’s decree concerning Israel’s flight to Egypt. Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’
in Genesis 2-3,” 272-73. Since the phrase “good and evil” seems to refer not simply to general knowledge but ability to render a judgment, it is not surprising that Moses speaks of the younger generation who will inherit the promised land as those who “have not known today good and evil” (Deut 1:39); meaning, the younger generation is innocent of the guilt that the older generation was guilty of, because they were not of age to make responsible decisions.
Isaiah 5:20, where Isaiah pronounces a woe to the judges who purposefully give false judgements.43 Altogether, it appears that these phrases indicate a spoken decision where
“good” and “evil” refer to alternative decisions.44
To make the pronouncement of “good” or “evil” is seen to be a divine action (recall 2 Sam 14:17; 1 Kings 3:28). This is confirmed by the serpent’s claim in Genesis 3:5, that the man and woman would “become like God, knowing good and evil.” This does not mean that man had increased in knowledge that he did not have before, or that he experienced evil in addition to good. This means ’ādām acted in moral autonomy by deciding, in contradiction to God’s decree, what was good.45 What the reader should understand by the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not a tree that, upon eating, gives a person moral knowledge, but rather a place where God makes judicial pronouncements between alternatives; “good” and “evil.” Said another way, the tree of knowledge of good and evil describes not a fruit to eat but a place of consultation. The travesty of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge does not consist in the content of the fruit but in the
transgression of the command. Instead of listening to the voice of God, ’ādām listened to the voice of his wife (3:17), and in the act of deciding to choose what was contrary to God’s decree, ’ādām stepped into the role of God as the moral arbiter (3:22).
The reason this is crucial for the role of ’ādām as a manager of the garden is this: as long as ’ādām performed his task in accordance to God’s declared counsel, he could be confident that the integrity of his relationship with God and the integrity of the regal operation would endure. The entire picture is that as ’ādām worked the soil,
43 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
271. See also Isaiah 5:20; “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” The phrase, “good and evil,” is clearly not general moral knowledge, but specific moral declarations.
44 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
274.
45 Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwehists Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3,”
277.
produced food for the animals, managed the care and safety of the garden, all according to God’s judgment, the boundaries of the garden would increase and the whole world would be under God’s dominion through his obedient son and vice-regent.46 But this program is contingent upon ’ādām trusting God’s counsel and restrictions. He would need to trust that the food God has expressly permitted for consumption is sufficient to sustain him in his venture.47 The placement of verse sixteen after verse fifteen is no coincidence: man’s activity as gardener and guardian (2:15) is directed by God’s
judgement at the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16).48 The result of working and keeping alongside God’s commandments would be an expanding garden that is safe from any threat that does not conform to God’s garden will.49
So then, given man’s task over the garden and his observance of God’s judgement at the tree of knowledge, both of which are already associated with the
‘adãmāh` (cf. 2:5-9), it would seem the divine image and likeness is on display. The
’ādām is a king who exercises dominion over the ‘adãmāh` in order to advance God’s rule while maintaining integrity of relationship through trust and obedience as a son. But the dominion activity of ’ādām expands beyond tilling the ‘adãmāh` itself; the following sequence in the narrative shows that dominion extends to that which comes from both the
‘adãmāh` (the animals) and the ’ādām (the woman).
Genesis 2:18-25: The Climactic, Blissful Ontological