In the Cool of the Day (Genesis 3:8)

Who walked in the garden in the cool of the day? God (Genesis 3:8)

After God implants him in the Garden of Eden, Adam is given one (and only one) prohibition: “From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die (Genesis 2:17 NASB).” It takes Adam and his newly created helpmate, Eve, all of 14 verses to violate this edict (Genesis 3:6).

“The Fall” is one of the best known stories in all of Scripture: Adam and Eve fall for the serpent’s sales pitch, partake of the forbidden fruit and have their eyes opened to their own nakedness (Genesis 3:1-7). Fear replaces innocense resulting in Adam and Eve making the dubious decision to hide from Yahweh in the very garden the deity created for them (Genesis 3:8).

In the aftermath, they answer for their actions (Genesis 3:8-13). The transition from transgression to accountability begins with the first walk in the Bible. Yahweh reenters the scene, walking in the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8 NASB).

They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 NASB)

God walking with people normally signifies intimacy. Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) relates:

“Walked with God” is a favorite expression in Genesis, depicting the righteous conduct of Israel’s heroes, including Enoch [Genesis 5:22, 24], Noah [Genesis 6:9], and Abraham [Genesis 17:1, 24:40, 48:15). Yet now the man and the woman are hiding from God in fear. God’s presence is also noted by his “walking” in the camp and sanctuary of Israel [Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:14; II Samuel 7:6-7]. Later Israel recognized that God demanded holiness and obedience if he were to continue to “walk” among his people. It was part of the sad deception that the man and woman who wanted so much to be “like God,” rather than obtaining the stature of deity, are afraid even to commune with him. (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (New American Commentary), 239)

Genesis paints a serene picture. God is strolling through the garden on a pleasant afternoon (Genesis 3:8). Though the Bible never specifies how frequently God visits the garden after creation many have presumed that walking the garden was part of God’s routine.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) rationalizes:

“They heard the sound of the LORD God walking to and fro in the garden in the breeze of the day.” [Genesis 3:8] The description of Eden with its trees, rivers, gold, and so on emphasized God’s presence there. Therefore it seems likely that it was not unusual for him to be heard walking in the garden “in the breeze of the day,” i.e., in the afternoon when cool breezes spring up and the sun is not so scorching. Maybe a daily chat between the Almighty and his creatures was customary. The term “walking” (hithpael participle of הלך) is subsequently used of God’s presence in the Israelite tent sanctuary (Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:14; II Samuel 7:6-7) again emphasizing the relationship between the garden and the later shrines. It is not God’s walking in the garden that was unusual, but the reaction of man and his wife. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 76)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) adds:

Toward sundown the man and the woman heard Yahweh walking in the garden. The verb used here to describe the divine movement—mithallēk—is a type of Hithpael that suggests iterative and habitual aspects. Such walks would take place in the early evening (the cooler time of day) rather than “in the heat of the day” (cf. Genesis 18:1). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 192)

The Garden of Eden is never explicitly called the garden of God, but it is implied (Genesis 3:8). R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) suspects:

Because God was present in the garden, we must not imagine that the opening line, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8a), indicates that God came down to the garden. He was already there. It was his earthly palace, his garden-temple. What the couple heard was “the rustle of God’s step” (Gerhard Von Rad [1901-1971]). It was the sacred sound that they had heard before and that had so filled them with joy but now brought dread. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 77)

Contextually, it makes sense that God’s presence in Eden is commonplace. Adam and Eve are hiding from someone and as presumably the only people on earth, by default, that someone must be Yahweh. It would also be odd for God to appear in the garden only after Adam and Eve have sinned.

God walking in the cool of the day is not the anomaly. The aberration is the humans’ fear of their creator. Though they could be attempting to evade the mandated death sentence (Genesis 2:17), it does not appear that they hide out of fear but rather shame (Genesis 3:8).

Nothing in the text lends itself to the setting being any more than an ordinary day in the Garden of Eden. The implication is that prior to the Fall, humanity enjoyed open communion with God. Afterwards, the stewards of the garden become fugitives from it owner. Fellowship has been broken.

Normative or not, this encounter represents a Biblical milestone. Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) observes:

This is the first explicit mention that any human being really attended to or even noticed the divine presence. Only in recognizing our lowliness can we also discover what is truly high. The turn toward the divine is founded on our discovery of our own lack of divinity. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 91)

The image of Yahweh in this passage is highly anthropomorphic; the divine is personified with human characteristics. This depiction is a major departure for God from the initial two chapters of Genesis where his omnipotence and transcendence are on full display.

Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) envision:

The event is described anthropomorphically. The lord of the garden took a walk in the pleasant afternoon when a breeze began to blow. As if he were naively relaxed, he took a stroll with the expectation to meet the man, appearing totally unconscious of what had just transpired. (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 53)

This anthropomorphic imagery may sound bizarre to the modern reader but it is not uncommon in the text. Richard Nelson (b. 1945) acknowledges:

Modern readers will probably be uncomfortable with the depiction of God strolling about in the breezy cool of the day, but we have already run into God’s direct physical interaction with earthly things in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:21-22. (Nelson, From Eden to Babel: An Adventure in Bible Study, 49)

Anthropomorphism is especially prominent in the J or Yahwistic material in Genesis. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) examines:

The Yahwistic narrative is full of the boldest anthropomorphisms. Yahweh walks in the garden in the cool of the evening [Genesis 3:8]; he himself closes the ark [Genesis 7:16]; he descends to inspect the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:5], etc. This is anything but the bluntness and naïveté of an archaic narrator. It is, rather, the candor and lack of hesitation which is only the mark of a lofty and mature way of thinking. This glasslike, transparent, and fragile way of thinking in the Yahwisic narrative makes of every exposition, which inevitably coarsens the original text, a difficult and almost insoluble task. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 26)

Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) resolves:

Many have commented on the strong anthropomorphism of this verse, which speaks of the sound or voice of the LORD God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, like any human garden-owner; but this may be seen as one of J’s typically subtle ways of making a point. These few words make it possible for us to conceive of a divine-human community where God intends to be seen face-to-face; J tells us that such a community is God’s intention, but it has been thwarted by our declaration of independence. (Gowan, Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary), 55)

Many religions affirm an ancient period in which a god or gods walked alongside humans. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) critiques:

The old view that Yahweh dwelt in this Garden can still be heard here, if only dimly...a childish view of God. Ra, too, strolled “every day” among humans in the primeval period, “for his heart wished to see what he had created” (Adolf Erman [1854-1937], Die Äegyptische Religion, 154-55). (Gunkel [translated by Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957)], Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), 18)

The anthropomorphism has long troubled interpreters. John L. Thompson (b. 1952) chronicles:

There remained an abiding concern to understand what it meant to “walk in the garden in the cool of the day”—a description that long ago offended Origen [184-253] for its crass anthropomorphism and drove him to deny the historicity of such accounts and to credit only figurative readings as authentic. The reformers, of course, bristled over Origen’s exegesis, yet Martin Luther [1483-1546] and John Calvin [1509-1564] had different takes on the ancient heresy of Anthropomorphites, who ascribed a literal body to God. (Thompson, Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture), 136)

Ronald H. Nash (1936-2006) recounts:

Augustine [354-430] once complained to Ambrose [337-397] that the God of the Bible had a body. When Ambrose asked where Augustine read such a thing, Augustine referred to Genesis 3:8 and its claim that the Lord God “was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Ambrose responded that he was amazed to be standing in the presence of a teacher of rhetoric who could not recognize nonliteral language. The simple recognition that the Bible sometimes uses figures of speech and nonliteral language eliminated many of Augustine’s misconceptions about Scripture. (Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy), 142)

Yahweh is described as walking in the garden in the “cool of the day” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV) or during an “evening (or ‘late...afternoon’) breeze” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], CEV, HCSB, MSG, NLT, NRSV). The traditional translation, “in the cool of the day”, became commonplace in the 16th century. The expression is rendered as such in the Great Bible (1540), the Bishop’s Bible (1558), the Geneva Bible (1560) and most notably the King James Version (1611).

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) and Cathi J. Fredricks advise:

Cool of the day...is literally the “wind” or “spirit” of the day. The wind/spirit is the symbol of God’s presence (see Genesis 1:2). (Waltke with Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 92)

Joseph Coleson (b. 1947) discusses:

The narrative includes the detail that God was walking in the cool of the day (lěrûah hayyôm); Hebrew rûah usually is taken as a substantive, meaning here, “wind,” or “breeze.” The phrase, “at the wind/the breeze of the day,” then, indicates midafternoon or a bit later, when the sun’s heat upon the earth had begun to abate and a pleasant breeze had sprung up. (Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 126)

The poet John Milton (1608-1674) pictures:

To fan the earth now walked, and under in
The evening cool; when he, from wrath more cool,
Came the mild Judge, and the Intercessor both,
To sentence Man: The voice of God they heard
Now walking in the garden, by softwinds (Milton, Paradise Lose, Book X)

The scene is peaceful; there is a sense that the disunity that follows is neither necessary nor does it comply with God’s original intent (Genesis 3:8-13).

Traditionally the phrase “in the cool of the day” has been interpreted as denoting time. The Septuagint takes this tact, incorporating the Greek word for “afternoon” (το δειλινον).

E. A. Speiser (1902-1965) declares:

At the breezy time of day. The Hebrew preposition le may be used of time (cf. Genesis 8:11), but not temperature; hence the memorable “in the cool of the day” lacks linguistic support. The time involved is toward sundown, when fresh breezes bring welcome relief from heat. (Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), 24)

The Bible often provides time stamps. Kenneth D. Mulzac (1963-2008) surveys:

While Nehemiah denotes “fourths” of a day, the Old Testament makes no other such divisions. It speaks of the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8); cf. Song of Solomon 2:17), “heat of the day” (Genesis 18:1; I Samuel 11:11), “high day” (Genesis 29:7), “midday” (Nehemiah 8:3), “broad daylight” (Amos 8:9), and “full day” (Proverbs 4:18). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 324)

John Goldingay (b. 1942) interprets:

It’s late afternoon. In the Middle East this can be when you get an ocean breeze, and after the heat of the day it becomes more pleasant to be outside. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part 1, 49)

W. Sibley Towner (b.1933) deduces:

The climatological perspective here is Palestinian, not Mesopotamian. Anyone who has lived in an area with a Mediterranean climate knows how pleasant it is when the sea breeze flows in to replace the hot air rising off the land at the end of the day. Yahweh apparently found it so as well. The delightful anthropomorphic description of God’s stroll fits well with the humanistic flavor of the entire story. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 46)

Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) places the “cool of the day” in the morning:

הום לרוח is usually interpreted as the evening breeze. It does not begin, however, until “a few fours after sundown”...(Wilhelm Nowack [1850-1928], Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie 1:51) and thus can hardly be called the “wind of the day.” It is better understood (so Peter Jensen [1861-1936], Kosmologie der Babylonier VI/1:573) as the cool sea breeze which arises in the early morning (Nowack, Archäologie 1:51) and reaches the mountain heights, e.g. Jerusalem, around 2:00-3:00 (Julius von Hann [1839-1921], Handbuch der Klimatologie III: 102-03; cf. Song of Solomon 2:17, 4:6 according to which the lovers remain together [in the night] “until the day breathes and the shadows flee”; cf. Karl Budde [1850-1935] on this passage). The transgression occurred at night; The new day brings remorse. This interpretation seems especially likely because the account concerns sexual sin. In Babylonia an exquisite light breeze blows from the northwest before sunrise (Hann, Klimatologie III: 106). The notion that the deity strolls in the Garden in the early morning is originally a myth from this period: when the treetops rustle and sway in the “day wind, the beloved Lord walks through the wood.” The assumption seems to be that his palace is in the Garden. An example of a gazebo located in a garden has now been found in Asshur (Mitteil. der. Deutsch. Or. Ges. 33 [1907]). (Gunkel [translated by Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957)], Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), 18-19)

The Hebrew phrasing is problematic. John H. Walton (b. 1952) introduces:

This traditional translation is problematic. No precedent exists for interpreting the word for “wind” (rûah) as “cool.” An alternative using comparative information is that the phrase should be translated “wind of the storm.” (Walton, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 35)

John H. Sailhamer (b. 1946) offers:

The phrase “wind of the day” (Genesis 3:8, literal translation) is often taken as an indication of the time of the Lord’s visit, that is, in “the cool of the day” or “the time of the evening.” The text says only “at/in the wind of the day” (cf. Jeremiah 13:24: “I will scatter them like chaff in the wind of the wilderness”). There is nothing in the context to suggest this expression refers to a time of day. In light of the general context of the picture of God’s coming in judgment and power, the “Wind” (rûah) envisioned by the author is more likely intended to resemble that “great and powerful wind”...that blew on the “mountain...of the LORD” in I Kings 19:11. Thus the viewpoint of the narrative is much the same as that of Job 38:1, where the Lord answered Job “out of the storm.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Genesis-Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 87)

Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) deciphers:

Numerous attempts have been made to explain this expression, which is found nowhere else in the Bible. The rabbinic expositions...do not reflect the actual sense of the verse. The interpretation of Nahmanides [1194-1270], and also of Benno Jacob [1862-1945] in modern times, that the man and his wife heard the voice of the Lord God in the wind...blowing in the garden, does not accord with the text. Many other explanations have been advanced, but they are unsatisfactory; equally unacceptable are the emendations that have been proposed, for example, that of Karl Budde [1850-1935]...lirwōah hayyōm [‘when the day became breezy’]...The view commonly held to-day is...the phrase signifies: at the time when the wind springs up towards evening (or, at dawn). This interpretation is open to a number of objections. In the first place, it is difficult to understand the prepositional Lāmedh as one of time, unless it is linked to an expression having a temporal meaning...It is possible, for instance, to say...lebhōqer [‘at morning’]...le‘erebh [‘at evening’]...liphnōth bōqer [‘at the approach of morning’]...le‘ēth ‘erebh [‘at the time of evening’], and so forth; but it is impossible to say...lesē’th baššō’ ăbhōth [literally, ‘at (or, to) women going out to draw water’]; the Bible writes le‘ēth sē’th haššō’ăbhōth [‘at the time when women go out to draw water]’] (Genesis 24:11). In order, therefore, to express the thought ‘at the time when the wind of the day blows’, it would have been necessary to write...le’ēth rūah hayyōm or its equivalent. Furthermore, even if we concede that this difficulty can be explained by reference to such doubtful examples as, when he knew...how to refuse the evil and choose the good (Isaiah 7:15), we must surely realize that the expression...rūah hayyōm cannot possibly indicate a wind blowing at a specific time of the day. This apart, seeing that the verse expressly comes to fix the time, there must doubtless be a reason for this, and it is inconceivable that this time should have no relation to the actual narrative; but the usual interpretation fails to establish such a connection. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: from Adam to Noah, 152-53)

If the expression does designate a time, this still leaves the question of why the time would be significant enough to chronicle. Many have seen symbolic meaning in the timing of the divine appointment viewing the prosaic scene as indicative of the relationship between Yahweh and creation prior to the Fall.

Jerome (347-420) preaches:

We read in Genesis that when Adam transgressed, when he paid heed to the serpent rather than to God, when he hid himself from the face of God, then God came into the garden and was walking about in the cool of day. Now listen to what Scripture says. God sought out Adam, not at midday but in the evening. Adam had already lost the sunlight for his high noon was over. Homilies 1. (Andrew Louth [b. 1944], Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 82)

Ignatius Jesudasan (b. 1939) remarks:

The cool of the evening, when God appears in the garden calling Adam to reckoning, signifies the time when Israel’s love for its royalty also had gone cold and lukewarm, and it was historically judged unworthy of God’s trusted gift, and hence exiled from the garden, through the instrumentality of foreign mercenary armies, represented in the myth by the so-called cherub angel, bearing a sword of fire, which swirls in all directions, guarding the access to the garden land [Genesis 3:24]. The death penalty imposed on Adam is the negation of the inclusive blessing of a prosperous life in the land promised to Abraham and his posterity, because that posterity had wilfully violated that blessing by human sacrifice to idols. (Jesudasan, Genesis Myth of Manifold Meanings, 80)

Others have taken a more literal approach. Michael E. Wittmer (b. 1967) documents:

P. Wayne Townsend [b. 1958] observes that the rules governing unclean things are the likely reason that God waited to confront Adam and Eve until the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8). According to Leviticus 11:25ff, an unclean person remained that way until evening. (Wittmer, Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God, 232)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) speculates:

After eating the forbidden fruit, humankind is not only on the earth; it is in trouble—taking cover from fig-leaves and hiding in the middle of the trees (Genesis 3:7-8). Yhwh God correspondingly walks in the breeze or cool of the day, away, so it is implied, from the noonday heat (Genesis 3:8)—not only an anthropomorphism but a suggestion of vulnerability. Vulnerable humankind seeks one form of shelter, God another: they, behind leaves and trees of the Garden: Yhwh God, in the cool of the day in the Garden. Like them, God knows what it is to want shelter. (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 156)

The timing could just as easily demonstrate Yahweh’s consideration for Adam and Eve as any self interest on the part of the divine. Either way, it was certainly not the weather that caused Adam and Eve to retreat.

The timing could also be associated with the initial prohibition. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) connects:

It seems to me that the word...rūah is not to be understood as a substantive but as a verb in the infinitive, like...hōm [‘become hot’] in the phrase...kehōm hayyōm [literally, ‘as the day grew hot’ that is, at noon] (Genesis 18:1), and that it signifies: to be in the period after midday. Not only in Arabic does this stem...(rāha yarūhu) denote an action taking place in the afternoon—that is, from the time when the sun begins to decline from the meridian till evening—but it is also found in this sense in Ugatiric...Since the verb occurs in the ancient Canaanite language, we may surmise that we have here a Canaanite expression that survived also in the poetic idiom of the people of Israel. Apparently the ancient epic poem on the story of the garden of Eden contained the words...lerūah hayyōm, that is, at the time when the day...rāh—is in its second stage, namely, the afternoon. The Torah uses this phrase just as it uses other poetic expressions that occurred in the poem...ēdh [‘waters of the deep’] [Genesis 1:2]; pleasant to the sight and good for food [Genesis 2:9]; the flaming sword which turned every way [Genesis 3:24]; and other phrases...The purpose of fixing time in this verse is readily explicable in the light of that statement (Genesis 2:17): for IN THE DAY that you eat of it you will surely die. Although it is possible...to understand the words in the day in a general sense, that is, at the time, nevertheless Scripture wished to emphasize that the word of the Lord God was wholly fulfilled, even in its literal meaning. The man was told that in the day that he ate from the tree of life he would surely die, and lo! on the very day that he ate, in the afternoon of the selfsame day, the Lord God appeared and decreed that he should be banished from the garden of Eden, so that he might no longer be able to approach the tree of life and eat of it and be liberated thereby from the power of death. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: from Adam to Noah, 153-54)

Recent scholarship has considered an alternate reading which replaces the anthropomorphic God strolling through the garden with a dramatic theophany. Paul J. Kissling (b. 1957) relays:

Jeffrey Niehaus [b. 1946] has argued that by using another homonymous Hebrew root for the Hebrew word translated “day” (ם’, yōm) this word should be translated as “storm.” He also suggests using rarer, although well-attested meanings, for the Hebrew words translated “cool of” and “voice” as “wind” and “thunder.” This verse should then be translated, “Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God as he was going back and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm, and they hid from Yahweh.” What is being described according to Niehaus is a theophany. The fear recalls the reaction of Israel at Sinai (Exodus 20:18) and the accounts of the theophanies in Ezekiel 1:13 and Psalm 77:17-19...While this is possible, it seems more likely...that the fearsomeness of a theophany is a result of the Fall and its punishment. At this point the LORD is still seeking the intimate fellowship with the man and the woman that he always enjoyed. (Kissling, Genesis, Volume 1 (The College Press NIV Commentary), 198-99)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) expounds:

The word ruah can mean “wind” and “spirit” and yom means “day.” These two words do not occur together like this anywhere else in the Old Testament, so we find ourselves without sufficient synchronic evidence to arrive at a confident interpretation. It is certainly interpretive to deduce that “wind of the day” refers to “cool of the day” and therefore refers to cool evening breezes. But what else could “wind of the day” mean”? The words ruah and qol do occur together elsewhere, but only in the context of a storm (Jeremiah 10:13, 51:16) as a reference to “wind” and “thunder” respectively. If that is the appropriate understanding, what is the word “day” there for?...Akkadian terminology has demonstrated that the word translated “day” also has the meaning “storm.” This meaning can be seen also for this Hebrew word (yom) in Isaiah 27:8 and Zephaniah 2:2...The Akkadian term is used in connection to the deity coming in a storm of judgment. If this is the correct rendering of the word here in Genesis 3, we can translate Genesis 3:8 in this way: “They heard the roar of the LORD moving about in the garden in the wind of the storm.” If this rendering is correct, it is understandable why Adam and Eve are hiding. I do not offer this as the right translation. The major objection is that the word yom only rarely carries the meaning “storm.” The appearance with the other two words here and the logic of the context make this new rendering a possibility, but one that can only be held tentatively. (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 224)

Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) offers a different slant on the judgment theophany. In deference to Genesis 1:2, Kline contends that rûach should be translated “Spirit” which he connects to the “Spirit of God”. Further, he advances that the lamed preposition indicates “in the capacity of”, as it does elsewhere (Numbers 22:22, 32; II Chronicles 18:21; Isaiah 4:6; 11:10). Hence, Kline translates Genesis 3:8: “They heard the sound of Yahweh God traversing the garden as the Spirit of the Day.” Kline associates “Spirit” and “day” with both God’s unique creative activity (Genesis 1:2) and the divine eschatological judgment. (Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, 128–31)

In selecting an interpretation, the stakes are exceedingly high as the choice one makes speaks directly to one’s image of God, which is ultimately what the text is about. God is either a deity who cleans house with no questions asked or a relational entity seeking communion with creation. God is either primarily concerned with rules and their enforcement or with the redemption of sinners, going so far as to personally seek offenders out to restore them to community. The traditional interpretation best fits the text as read through the lens of Jesus (John 3:16). The newer readings have linguistic support but neglect theology.

The traditional understanding allows for a calm before the storm. The storm still comes but the ephemeral calm makes all the difference.

Why is Yahweh walking in the garden? What does the phrase “in the cool of the day” add to the story (Genesis 3:8)? Why does God choose this particular time to appear? If you were in a parental role as is God in this scene, how would you have handled the disobedient Adam and Eve? How did Adam and Eve’s transgression affect their relationship with Yahweh? With whom do you go on pleasant evening walks? What does this story say about God? How do you imagine this scene? How do you picture God? Does Genesis’ anthropomorphic presentation bother you?

Yahweh is a hands on God who takes a great risk in interacting with creation. W. Lee Humphreys (b. 1939) assesses:

The lines between creator and creation seem initially clear in Genesis 2...But Yahweh God does not only establish his creation. He gets into it—allowing, prohibiting, adjusting, augmenting, and modifying what is judged not good. And depending on ha’adam’s response to the prohibition, the need for adjustment and modification may grow. Yahweh God of Genesis 2 is, like God of Genesis 1, neither sexed nor paired. But in entering the garden (even regularly “walking about” in it according to Genesis 3:8), in engaging and interacting with ha’adam, Yahweh God finds/forms an other to himself and becomes an other to ha’adam. In their interactions lies the potential for further development of each as characters, as they define themselves in relation to each other. Each character it seems has interests and a stake in their relationship. And it is possible these interests and stakes make conflict. Thus, by directly engaging one of those he formed, Yahweh God takes a risk that sets in motion a genuine story, a risk and potential for story not found in all the general grandeur and wonder of God’s creating and creation in Genesis 1. (Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal, 42)

God takes the risk of intertwining the fates of creator and creation and in this instance, there are tragic consequences. Robin Darling Young (b. 1951) laments:

Not only are relations between Adam and Eve different, relations between Adam and Eve and God are different. It’s not just that Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, but God is, too. No longer will He be walking among His human beings in the cool of the day. (Bill D. Moyers [b. 1934], Genesis: A Living Conversation, 58)

What does Adam and Eve’s rebellion cost God? Who suffers greater consequences, God or humanity? Is the chasm between creator and creation permanent? When and where do contemporary believers go to hear God; where is the modern equivalent to in the cool of the day in the Garden of Eden?

“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” A.W. Tozer (1897-1963), The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 1

Wisdom: A Peace of Paradise (Proverbs 3:17)

Complete: “All her (Wisdom’s) ways are pleasantness and her paths are ____.” Peace (Proverbs 3:17)

Proverbs is one of five biblical books classified as wisdom. Not surprisingly, several of its passages laud wisdom. Proverbs 3:13-20 is one such section.

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) notes:

Most commentators...take Proverbs 3:13-20 to be a single eight-line poem...The poem is an encomium of Wisdom through the listing of her benefits to human beings and the depiction of her role in God’s act of creation. The encomium of wisdom remarkably foreshadows the encomium of the wise woman in Proverbs 31:10-31, even to the singling out of the hands (Proverbs 31:19-20). Like the lectures of chapters 1-9, the poem provides motives for hearers to pursue wisdom with all their heart. (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 53-54)

Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) distinguishes:

This section is more a hymn than typical exhortation. It has none of the imperatives generally associated with exhortation. It personifies Wisdom, and its beginning (“Blessed...”) is elsewhere used in the instructional hymn...In context it supports the general exhortation to pursue wisdom. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 81)

The poem extols wisdom’s relative value in comparison to more traditional riches (Proverbs 3:13-16), its value to humanity (Proverbs 3:17-18) and its divine origins (Proverbs 3:19-20). Roland E. Murphy (1917-2002) explains:

Her value is beyond any of the most precious metals (a frequent comparison; compare Proverbs 8:18-19 with Proverbs 3:14-15). The description of wisdom in Proverbs 3:16 echoes the standard portrayal of the Egyptian goddess Ma‘at, who has the ankh (life) in one hand and a sceptre (ruling power) in the other. Wisdom brings riches, but the great benefit is indicated in Proverbs 3:17, paths of peace. (Murphy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New International Biblical Commentary), 24)

Wisdom is personified in this unit as a trustworthy guide (Proverbs 3:17), assuming the Lord’s role (Proverbs 3:6). Wisdom is also presented as a woman. Frederick Buechner (b. 1926) denotes, “‘Her ways are ways of pleasantness,’ says Solomon, then adding, just in case there should be any lingering question as to her gender, ‘and all her paths are peace’ (Proverbs 3:17) (Buechner, Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized, 125).”

Among wisdom’s benefits to humankind is peace.

Her ways are pleasant ways And all her paths are peace. (Proverbs 3:17 NASB)

Proverbs 3:17 assures that, contrary to popular opinion, wisdom can make life joyful.

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) relays:

It is not just quantity of life (length of days) that is promised to those who have a relationship with Wisdom, but quality as well. Wisdom’s path is pleasant. The path refers to one’s life, and the lives of those who are wise are not only pleasant but also characterized by peace. This reminds us of the consequences promised to those who heed the instruction/commands of the father in Proverbs 3:2. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 138)

Though wisdom leads to peace, it may not always seem this way. Dave L. Bland (b. 1953) admits:

To a youth, the path of wisdom may not initially be pleasant and peaceful (see Proverbs 2:1-4). Yet for those who allow wisdom to instruct them, it will lead to peace (Proverbs 3:17). (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon (College Press NIV Commentary), 72)

In the pantheon of valuables, where do you rank wisdom? Were you to personify wisdom, would you envision it as male or female? How are you actively pursuing wisdom? What enticement would lead you to pursue wisdom more vigorously? What are the byproducts of wisdom?

Proverbs 3:17 assures that peace is an offshoot of wisdom. This concept is central to the book of Proverbs and the Bible as a whole. Leo G. Perdue (b. 1946) characterizes, “The pathways of Woman Wisdom are characterized by pleasantness and peace (Proverbs 3:17). These descriptive terms point to the state of well-being and delight into which the sage enters, once wisdom’s teaching is followed and incorporated into life (Perdue, Proverbs (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), cxv).”

Alluding to this verse, the Babylonian Talmud (Gittin 59b) asserts that the entire Torah is intended to promote peace. This premise is still seen in Jewish worship. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (1954) remind:

This verse and the next [Proverbs 3:17-18] are used in liturgy, particularly when the Torah is returned to the ark followings its reading. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 31)

The Hebrew term “peace” (the common word shalowm) conveys more than the absence of war. Max Anders (b. 1947) explains:

Unlike the confused darkness of the path to destruction in chapter 2, the paths of wisdom are pleasant and peaceful. Wisdom puts us on the path of highest pleasure, not boredom. Peace (Hebrew shalom) stands for the joy and prosperity that accompany the full blessing of God, not merely the absence of conflict. (Anders, Proverbs (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 29)

The source of this wisdom and peace is God. Daniel J. Treier (b. 1972) instructs:

People mistakenly think that peace—shalom as positive flourishing, not just lack of conflict—comes from these goods in themselves rather than from relationship with God, which is integral to the genuine enjoyment that Wisdom provides (Proverbs 3:17). (Treier, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 26)

In the next verse, wisdom is described as a “tree of life” (Proverbs 3:18), an obvious allusion to the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9). It implies that wisdom can lead the way back to paradise.

Ellen F. Davis (b. 1950) expounds:

The sages move home, to their own ancient tradition, with the reference to the tree of life (Genesis 3:18). The image stands out; because, outside the first chapters of Genesis, this is the only direct reference to that famous tree, from which our first disobedience separated us (see Genesis 3:24). The sages seem to suggest that laying hold of wisdom reverses our original exile and brings us back to Eden. Those who find wisdom experience something of the joy of paradise: “All her ways are ways of pleasantness” (Proverbs 3:17). The sages here use a technique that is common among the biblical writers. In just a few words they evoke the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the foundational story for humanity’s history with God. That story remains in the background as a foil against which the sages’ understanding of wisdom appears in sharp outline...One might sum up all the teaching of Proverbs by saying that wisdom means holding two things always together: discerning knowledge of the world plus obedience to God. As we shall see, the tragedy that occurred in Eden was the separation of those two essential elements of wisdom. It is the sages’ task to reconnect them. (Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

How does wisdom lead to peace? What is the connection between peace and wisdom? Do you exhibit the peace that only wisdom can provide?

“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

The Gardener Of Eden (John 20:15)

Who did Mary Magdalene think Jesus was when she first saw him after His resurrection? The gardener (John 20:15)

Though she does not play a prominent role through most of the gospel narrative, Mary Magdalene takes center stage after the crucifixion. She is the person who discovers the empty tomb (John 20:1). After relaying the (potentially) good news to the disciples (John 20:2), Mary remains outside the tomb weeping (John 20:11). Presumably, she interprets the absence of Jesus’ body as an insult added to injury.

After conversing with two angels who were in the tomb, Mary encounters the risen Jesus himself (John 20:12-18). She does not recognize him initially, presuming him to be the gardener of the garden tomb (John 20:15).

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” (John 20:15 NASB)

Recognition comes not through sight (Matthew 5:8; Ephesians 1:18) as it is only after Jesus says her name that Mary recognizes him (John 20:16). As Jesus had professed earlier in the gospel, sheep know their shepherd’s voice when they hear it (John 10:4).

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) reads the incident with an apologetic bent:

This is perhaps the earliest literary evidence of a Jewish response to the Christian story of the resurrection. While early Christians explained the tradition of an empty tomb by claiming that God had raised Jesus from the dead, early Christian documents report a Jewish response that the body has been stolen from the tomb by a gardener. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 528)

When she encounters Jesus, Mary is inconsolable and likely still in shock. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) comments, “Her conclusion that perhaps this man moved Jesus’ body since he happened to be the gardener indicates that she has not heard the man standing before her (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 156).”

Mary, like many in mourning, is on a mission, staying busy by doing the distracting work of taking care of the deceased’s affairs. She assumes the highly unusual role of chief mourner and claims her right to Jesus’ body. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) speculates, “Mary apparently supposes that there has been some objection to Jesus’ having been buried in this particular tomb and assures (the gardener) that she will assume the responsibility of finding another place to bury the body (Stallings, The Randall House Bible Commentary: The Gospel of John, 279).”

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) analyzes:

Perhaps, she told herself, he had seen something – indeed, perhaps he had been involved in the moving of the body himself. If Mary thought him to be the gardener, she may have wondered if he had been under orders from the owner to remove the body of this executed criminal from the new tomb where it had been hurriedly placed. That she should offer to make the arrangements to fetch the body and given it a proper burial suggests she was a woman of some wealth and standing (as Luke 8:2-3 attests). (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 641)

Mary’s interpretation is mundane - she mistakes Jesus for the gardener (kepouros). This is the only time this word appears in the New Testament. Counselor and gardener Catherine McCann defines:

The gardener could mean the owner of the garden or an overseer or caretaker—therefore someone who would have known who disturbed the tomb. Brown remarks that the word kepouros (“gardener”) is the only biblical reference using this term, yet it was not an uncommon word in secular papyri. (McCann, New Paths Toward the Sacred: Awakening the Awe Experience in Everyday Living, 152)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) rationalizes, “Presumably he looks less angelic than the other two individuals, so that she mistakes him for a gardener (recall John 19:41) (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 263).”

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notes that gardener was the best guess available to Mary.

Apart from grave robbers or other mourners—neither of whom would have been likely visitors at this early morning hour—gardeners attending to the grounds where a tomb was located (cf. John 19:41) would have been the only people around. Mary’s guess indicates that at first blush the resurrected Jesus is indistinguishable from an ordinary person. (Clinton E. Arnold [b.1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts, 188)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) justifies Mary’s blunder:

The confusion of Jesus with a gardener is logical, given that they are standing in a garden. The misidentification points to the degree to which Jesus’s appearance is unexpected. That Jesus has left his burial clothes in the tomb might provoke fanciful speculation that Jesus has borrowed the gardener’s clothes. Rembrandt depicts this possibility in his painting The Resurrected Lord Appears to Mary Magdalene (1651) [pictured]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 269)

Some have seen Mary’s misconception as indicative of inadequate faith. Mark A. Matson (b.1951) critiques:

It is curious that, having seen and heard the angels in the tomb, she would still ask Jesus, thinking him to be a gardener, where the body has been moved. This question underscores her lack of comprehension and belief. (Matson, John (Interpretation Bible Studies),119)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

Her lack of spiritual perceptivity at this point could hardly be made clearer. On the other hand, it seems characteristic of first appearance stories that Jesus is not immediately recognized (cf. the Emmaus story in Luke 24). G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000] has conjectured that the glorified Jesus made himself sensibly recognizable only to his disciples but that in his transfigured condition he would not have been distinguishable from other supernatural beings such as an angel. The problem with this suggestion is that Mary confuses Jesus with a gardener, but she certainly does not confuse him with the angels in the tomb. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 331)

As Witherington notes, not recognizing the post resurrected Jesus is not an uncommon phenomena (Luke 24:13-16). More than any deficiency in faith, Mary’s reaction accentuates the unexpectedness of the resurrection. She could not perceive Jesus because she had rejected the possibility of seeing him.

Are you looking for Jesus? Would you recognize him if you saw him? Have you ever not recognized a loved one because they were in an unexpected place? Why does Mary fail to recognize Jesus? Is her misidentification an evidence of a lack of faith? Is Mary completely wrong?

In a way, Mary is correct - she is encountering the gardener. In John 15:1-17, Jesus paints a famous picture of a vine meticulously trimmed by a gardener so that it might produce optimum fruit. Though the word for gardener (georgos) is different, the analogy begins with Jesus stating that the Father is the gardener of the vine (John 15:1).

The imagery may even bring the Biblical story full circle by alluding back to creation. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) explains:

Some interpreters believe that John is consciously sweeping up numerous biblical motifs that connect with the theme of “garden.” If so, it is no accident that in John 20:15, here in this garden, Mary misunderstands the identity of Jesus and thinks he is the gardener. Nicolas Wyatt [b.1941], after showing the historical evidence in Judaism that placed the Garden of Eden in the Holy Land, goes on to show how motifs from the Eden story reappear in numerous literatures of the period. If this imagery is at work (and here many would caution us), in this story we are viewing a woman in “Paradise” meeting the ruler of the Garden himself, Jesus. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 548)

Through his death and resurrection, Jesus plants the seed that will lead humanity to the new Eden.

Sandra M. Schneiders (b. 1936) adds:

The...scene, redolent of allusions to both the garden of the first creation (cf. Genesis 2:8-15 and Genesis 3:8-10) and the Song of Songs (especially Song of Solomon 3:1-4), brings the lover, Mary Magdalene, to the garden of the tomb searching for her Beloved and refusing comfort or enlightenment from anyone, even angels, who cannot tell her where he is...He is indeed the divine gardener inaugurating the New Creation, the Good Shepherd calling his own name, and the Spouse of the New Covenant rewarding the search of the anguished lover. (John R. Donahue [b. 1933], Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998],183)

Ravi Zacharias (b. 1946) concludes, “Yes, there is a Gardener...And, yes, the Gardener is the God revealed fully in Jesus Christ (Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Extreme Edition).”

Given the same data as Mary, what conclusion would you have drawn? If Jesus were to cross your path, how would you recognize him?

“The best place to find God is in a garden. You can dig for him there.” - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Revelation and Recession (Revelation 22:2)

How often does the fruit ripen in heaven? Once a month (Revelation 22:2)

A description of the New Jerusalem is one of the Bible’s final topics (Revelation 21:10-22:5). In detailing the end, John reverts back to the beginning as he incorporates old imagery from Eden (Genesis 2:8-17) in his presentation of the New Jerusalem. Among the interesting details that John records is the presence of trees that yield fruit on a monthly basis (Revelation 22:2).

Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22:2 NASB)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) summarizes:

This river apparently goes down the middle of the golden street, and on either side of its banks are trees of life (or is there only one tree?), which bear twelve different kinds of fruit year-round, some each month. (Witherington, Revelation (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 272)

In the New Jerusalem, crops will not experience seasonal interruption. This pronouncement is not original to John as Ezekiel shared a similar revelation (Ezekiel 47:12).

“By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.” (Ezekiel 47:12 NASB)

Though obviously quite similar, John’s account is actually more encouraging than his prophetic predecessor’s. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) writes:

This goes beyond Ezekiel 47:12, where the fruit trees bear fruit every month but not twelve different kinds of fruit...The mention of ‘twelve kinds’ certainly alludes to a twelve-month calendar and especially to the seasons for growing crops. Normally, fruit appears at its proper season, but in the final Eden there will be no seasons, and abundant fruit will be available every month, an incredible promise for those of us who live for seasonal fruit crops. (Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 772)

Many commentators interpret these images metaphorically noting that perpetual produce is merely symbolic of the abundance that characterizes the holy city. Leon Morris (1914-2006) deciphers, “As there is neither sun nor moon [Revelation 21:23] there is of course no ‘month’. But John’s expression is perfectly intelligible. He is using the imagery to bring out his point that there is an abundant supply (Morris, Revelation (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 249).”

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) expounds:

There are no seasons of scarcity in the new Eden, only seasons of plenty, for the tree produces twelve kinds of fruit, presumably one for each month of the year. It is a perpetual source of nourishment that sustains the inhabitants of the city forever, and the leaves of this tree are meant “for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2; cf. Ezekiel 47:12). Similar to the crystal clear water, which is an inexhaustible source of life, the healing leaves provide physical and spiritual wholeness. (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 257-8)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) summarizes succinctly, “One crop per month from each tree produces a never-ending and therefore sufficiently large and eternal supply of life (Gundry, Commentary on Revelation).”

What is your favorite seasonal fruit? Do any contemporary fruits ripen as often as those in the New Jerusalem? What would the ramifications of having monthly crops be?

One of the benefits that comes with the assurance of continuous crops is stability. This constancy extends to many realms of life as the stoppage of seasonal cycles corresponds to the end of a cyclical economy. The New Jerusalem is devoid of droughts and the uncertainty that plagues the old age. The continuous food supply assures that the New Jerusalem will also be without economic downturns.

This is no small comfort in the present economy. The United States’ relatively short history has been spattered with countless recessions, depressions and panics to varying degrees of significance: 1797, 1807, 1815-1821, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1920-21, The Great Depression, 1948-49, 1953-54, 1957-58, 1960-61, 1969-1970, 1973-75, early 1980's, 2001-2003, current recession. Among the many hopes that the New Jerusalem provides is a recession proof existence. Revelation was above all meant to provide hope for its readers and this segment of Revelation is worthy of a reminder at a time when so many are experiencing economic hardship.

Compare and contrast Eden (Genesis 2:8-17) and the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:10-22:5). How has the current recession affected your life? Can you even imagine a recession proof existence? Who is more affected by a recession, the rich or the poor?

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” - Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)