Rabboni! (John 20:16)

What did Mary Magdalene say to Jesus when she recognized Him after His resurrection? “Rabboni”

John’s gospel records that Mary Magdalene is the first to see the risen Christ (John 20:1-18). Mary stands outside of the empty tomb weeping before two angels question her regarding the reason for her tears (John 20:11-13). After responding to the angelic inquiry, Mary turns and sees Jesus, though she does not recognize him; instead she presumes him to be the gardener (John 20:14-15). When Jesus calls her by her name, she perceives his identity and returns the gesture, exclaiming, “Rabboni!” (John 20:16).

Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). (John 20:16 NASB)

When uttering the caritative “Rabboni”, Mary is most likely excited (John 20:16). Many translations add an explanation point (ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though some do not (ASV, CEV, KJV).

Of the four canonical gospels, John alone records that Mary calls Jesus by this name. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) remarks:

This is apparently the term by which she has habitually addressed Jesus and, for some reason, John thinks it important that his readers know the very word she uses. (Stallings, The Gospel of John (The Randall House Bible Commentary), 279)

The text notes that Mary turns to Jesus at the sound of her name, a posture she seemingly already has assumed (John 20:14, 16). Shelly Rambo (b. 1968) observes:

There is a slight confusion in the text about Mary’s positioning. It says that Jesus speaks her name and that she turns around and responds to him [John 20:16]. But isn’t Mary already facing Jesus? At first she was looking into the tomb, speaking to the angels [John 20:11]. Then she turns and speaks to him (without recognizing him) [John 20:14]. When he speaks her name, we assume that she is facing him. But the next verse calls that into question [John 20:16]. It says that she turns and responds by speaking his name. Somewhere between speaking to him as the gardener and speaking his name, did she turn away?...Many explain it by saying that the saying that the second turn is not literal; it merely emphasizes Mary’s comprehension of Jesus’ identity. The turning highlights her moment of recognition. (Rambo, Spirit and Trauma: A Theology of Remaining, 86)

Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) informs:

The use of Mary’s name draws her attention because obviously the gardener knows her personally. Yet Mary had already turned towards the man (same verb) in John 20:14. Those who try to deal with the duplication without resorting to literary criticism (i.e., the joining of once independent accounts) usually suppose that Mary had turned away in the meantime. (Brown, The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI (The Anchor Bible), 991)

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) posits:

The second turning is redundant, since Mary has already turned once to Jesus. Thus the second turning must represent a spiritual turning, an awakening. (Resseguie, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, 149)

Nicolas Farelly (b. 1978) evaluates:

This new “turn” is best explained by Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], John, 686...for whom it “signifies the sudden and lively movement towards him as μή μου ἂρτου John 20:17 shows.” Additionally, as is explained by Dorothy A. Lee [b. 1953], “Turning from Death to Life: A Biblical Reflection on Mary Magdalene,” 114, these successive “turns” may indicate that “at each point,” Mary moves closer and closer to what she seeks. Misunderstanding in the end, leads her to understanding.” A similar interpretation to Lee’s is given by Jean Zumstein [b. 1944], L’évangile Selon Saint Jean (13-21), 279...“Marie Madelein se détourne du tombeau qui signifie, pour elle, la réalité de la mort, pour se diriger vers le vivant.” (Farelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of Their Faith and Understanding, 159)

Mary’s body language corresponds with her exclamation: She is experiencing a moment of recognition. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) analyzes:

The narrator marks her reaction first by noting her movement—being turned—suggesting that she has looked away after making her demand and Jesus’s words cause her to turn about suddenly [John 20:16]. The double turn puzzles exegetes, but Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975]’s observation—“for reasons of rhythm, one hesitates to dispense with it” (1984, 2:209)—may point to the importance of the phrase for the operation of the story. John marks the moment of recognition with a word, “Rabbouni,”...With dramatic economy and without the interjections by an omniscient narrator, the Gospel represents the private experience of recognition through public displays of emotion. Her choice of address is not the language of faith but of reunion (Kasper Bro Larsen [b. 1972] 2008, 190). The personal address “Mariam” calls for a more personal response. She has not been prepared to see Jesus by any prior witness. The response is a pure outpouring of joy. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 270)

John uncharacteristically leaves the word “Rabboni” in its original language though the gospel does gloss the term for the book’s Hellenistic audience. Like a movie where only a few words need be subtitled, John’s use of “Rabboni” stands out (John 20:16).

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) deduces:

The reader knows Greek and only Greek. Such common terms as “Rabbi” (John 1:38), “Messiah” (John 1:41), and “Rabboni” (John 20:16) must be translated. Names are also translated to convey their meaning (Cephas, John 1:42; Siloam, John 9:7). Where Hebrew or Aramaic terms are introduced (Bethesda, Gabbatha, and Golgotha), they are referred to as foreign words (“in Hebrew,” John 5:2, 19:13, 17) rather than as the names by which the reader would know these locations. Their presence adds credibility to the account. (Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 218-19)

John refers to “Rabboni” as “Hebrew” (ASV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV) though it is actually “Aramaic” (CEV, ESV, NIV). Some translations simply omit this clause presumably to avoid the imprecision (KJV, NKJV).

Robert Kysar (b. 1934) acknowledges:

Rabboni is a more personal address to a teacher, one which reflects warmth and affection. John’s translation (Teacher) is consistent with John 1:38, although “my master” might be a more exact rendering of the Aramaic. (John calls it Hebrew, as he is prone to do with Aramaic words, e.g. John 19:13.) (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 300)

Though something might be lost in translation, for John’s purposes the word means “teacher” (John 20:16). John’s definition provides the text’s own internal meaning of the term.

Holly E. Hearon (b. 1956) connects:

The identification is underlined...when Mary, in the moment that she recognizes Jesus, calls him “Rabboni.” Throughout the gospel Jesus is addressed as “Rabbi” by his followers (John 1:38, 49, 3:2, 4:31, 6:25,9:2, 11:18). However, both the first (John 1:38) and last time (John 20:16) this title is used it is accompanied by the parenthetical statement: “which means teacher.” This suggests that the storyteller wants the audience to hear these two verses together. (Hearon, The Mary Magdalene Tradition: Witness and Counter-Witness in Early Christian Communities, 160)

Like the Greek text, English versions leave the word in its original language. The term rhabboní is transliterated “Rabboni” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT), “Rabbouni” (HCSB, NRSV) or “Rab-bo’ni” (RSV).

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

Rabbouni or rabboni (the spelling varies in the manuscripts) appears to be an extended form of the more familiar rabbi (literally, ‘my teacher’). The term appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Mark 10:51...In rabbinical Hebrew the term is regularly applied to God (in the expression ribbônô šel ‘ôlām, ‘rabbi of the world’), and this prompts Sir Edwyn Clement Hoskyns [1884-1937] (p. 543) to argue that although it may be used in reference to a human rabbi, it is never used in addressing a human rabbi. Mary’s address therefore becomes a form of address to God, not unlike John 20:28. But it has often been pointed out that rabboni is used in addressing men in the Palestinian and Jerusalem Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures). As far as John is concerned, he offers Didaskale (‘Teacher’) as his translation for both ‘Rabbi’ (John 1:38) and ‘Rabboni’ (John 20:16). (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 646)

“Rabboni” is a title for honored teachers intensified to convey the highest affection. In the New Testament, the title is spoken only twice, both times of Jesus, by Bartimaeus (Mark 10:51) and Mary Magdalene (John 20:16).

Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) defines:

“Rabbouni” literally means “my teacher” or “my master,” but it is used elsewhere simply as an equivalent to the common word “Rabbi.” Nevertheless, in this description of Jesus’ appearance to Mary there is undeniably something very personal. Unlike his other resurrection appearances, here Jesus simply calls her by name and she recognizes him as she hears him. So the way in which she turns to him and answers him with “Rabbouni” does have a strong personal and affective component (see also “my Lord” in John 20:13). All this is easy to link with her prehistory as a woman saved by Jesus from great distress (Mark 16:9), but the Evangelist does not mention this. (Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, 637)

In later years, the Jews recognized three levels of teachers: rab (lowest), rabbi, rabboni (highest). This hierarchy does not seem to be in place in John’s gospel given that the gospel’s internal translation makes it interchangeable with “rabbi”.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) compares:

It is often said that the word means much the same as “Rabbi”. Etymologically this may be so, though we should not overlook the point made by W.F. Albright [1891-1971] that the term is a caritative with a meaning like “my (dear (or) little) master” (The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, p.158). But the usage is decisive. “Rabbi” is frequently used as a form of address, but “Rabboni” is not cited in this way (other than in prayer, of address to God). Matthew Black [1908-1994], however, points to its use in the old Palestinian Pentateuch Targum (see p. 119, n. 136; he regards it as a much more reliable guide to first-century Aramaic than the Onkelos Targum which is the basis of much of Gustaf Dalman [1855-1941]’s argument), which “shows that it cannot have been uncommon in earlier Palestinian Aramaic for a human lord” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, p. 21). He does not, however, cite any example of the term as a form of address to a human lord. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 839)

Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) add:

The precise distinction between “Rabbouni’ and the more common “Rabbi” is difficult to see, although some have suggested that “Rabbouni” shows greater respect and is therefore more suitable for use by a woman. This may be the case, but these subtle distinctions would be as lost on John’s original readers as they are on us today. More likely is that John is concerned to preserve the actual word used by Mary. (Bryant and Krause,John (The College Press NIV Commentary), 394)

The vocative appellation does seem to indicate intimacy. Francis J. Moloney (b.1940) discusses:

The name Jesus calls Mary and her response are Greek transliterations of Aramaic, although the narrator explains that it is Hebrew. There is a level of intimacy implied by the recourse to an original language in both the naming and the response (cf. Robert Gordon Maccini [b. 1951], Her Testimony is True 212-213). Some (e.g., B.F. Westcott [1825-1901], Gospel 292; John Marsh (1904-1994), Saint John 637) mistakenly argue that Rabbouni is quasi-divine. A number of scholars (e.g., Sir Edwyn Clement Hoskyns [1884-1937], Gospel 542; Marsh, Saint John 633, 636-637; Béda Rigaux [1899-1982], Dio l’ha risuscitato 324-325; Sandra M. Schneiders [b.1936], “John 20:11-18" 162-164) regard Mary’s addressing Jesus as Rabbouni as an authentic confession of faith. Others (André Feuillet [1909-1998], “Le recherche du Christ” 93-112; Mark W.G. Stibbe [b. 1960], John 205; Teresa Okure [b. 1941], “Jesus’ Commission” 181) trace in this encounter the experience of the bride seeking the spouse in the early hours of the dawn in Song of Solomon 3:1-3. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 528)

Mary’s use of “rabboni” parallels Jesus’ personal direct address earlier in the verse (John 20:16). Adeline Fehribach (b. 1950) recognizes:

When Mary Magdalene does recognize Jesus through his calling her by name, she responds by calling out “Rabbouni,” not “Rabbi” (cf. John 1:38). Although English texts usually render this title “Teacher,” some scholars maintain that “Rabbouni” is the equivalent of “My Master” or “My Teacher,” rather than just “Master” or “Teacher.” This personalization of the title makes it a term of endearment. On one level of the text, the use of this particular title by Mary Magdalene may indicate that she does not yet understand the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection. On another level of the text, however, the personalization makes up for the fact that the christology of the implied author would not allow Mary Magdalene to call Jesus by his given name. No one in the Fourth Gospel calls Jesus by his given name. As one who has been sent above by the Father, Jesus’s aloofness from the world would not have allowed for it. Nevertheless, combined with Jesus’ calling Mary Magdalene by name, Mary Magdalene’s use of a personalized title for Jesus makes the Johannine text reminiscent of Chaereas and Callirhoe who call out each other’s name. (Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, 159-60)

What is undeniable is that in calling Jesus “Rabboni” Mary Magdalene is now aware of his identity. (John 20:16). There are parallel recognition scenes in other cultures. Raymond E. Brown (1929-1998) catalogs:

Some have found here an adaptation of the recognition scene that appears in stories of the Greco-Roman gods as they walk among men (Martin Dibelius [1883-1947], Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 [1918], 137). However, C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] is correct in insisting that a prolonged recognition is common the Circumstantial Narratives of Jesus’ appearances (p. 973)...The two disciples on the road to Emmaus walked and talked with Jesus for a while before they recognized him in the breaking of bread (Luke 24:31, 35). In John 21 we shall find Jesus standing on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias and talking with the disciples about fishing, before finally the Beloved Disciple recognizes him [John 21:1-7]. Such difficult recognitions may have had an apologetic purpose: they show that the disciples were not credulously expecting to see the risen Jesus. But they also have a theological dimension. (Brown, The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI (The Anchor Bible), 1008-1009)

In this moment of revelation, Mary’s perception of Jesus transitions from a corpse, an object, to a living subject. Kathryn Madden sees this as being conveyed in Mary’s turning to Jesus:

The scriptural narrative does not indicate that Mary has ever turned away from Jesus in the first place. The pivotal point is that when the angels first ask Mary why she is weeping, she cannot recognize Jesus as the risen Christ but only through her projections as a gardener [John 20:15]. Then, in contrast to a bodily act, when we turn the second time, we come to know that we are separate but related to the divine source who meets us in the dark night of the imageless space. There is no one other than God who is capable of being such a reliable and eternal mother-mirror. If we are fully given to this source, we are transformed into the same image. In psychological terms, this moment of self reflection would be an instant when perception gives way to apperception, when “object” turns into a “subject.”...We can look into the psyche and think we “see him,” but he is hidden from us, for whatever reasons of human defense structures. When Christ does reveal himself, we may not “see him” because we are caught in our own projections. The second turning, then, is a profound transfigurative moment for Mary as well as the Risen Christ. We see all essences in their restored, eternal form. It is the eternal essence of the Risen Christ who Mary greets as “Rabbouni.” (David A. Leeming [b. 1937], Madden and Stanton Marlan [b. 1943], Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume Two: L-Z, 550)

In this exchange, both Jesus and Mary Magdalene utter only a single word. Yet these words speak volumes. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) quips, “This is Jesus’ shortest sermon.” (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1151)

Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) interprets:

In identifying her by name, Jesus is acting out the role of the good shepherd who calls his own sheep (John 10:26). Mary’ recognition of Jesus as ‘Rabbouni’ indicates that she is a member of his flock (John 10:27) and demonstrates that she is a true disciple who recognizes the resurrected Jesus as teacher. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Marianne Blickenstaff (b. 1959), “Women in the Johannine Community: An Exercise in Historical Imagination”, A Feminist Companion to John: Volume II, 25)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) concurs:

The present scene validates Jesus’ words in John 10:3, “My sheep know my voice” (Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002] 1990: 3.317; Teresa Okure [b. 1941] 1992: 181). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 568)

Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) generalizes:

Being called by name is what moves Mary from the conviction that Jesus is dead to the realization that he is alive. This encounter is unique in many respects, yet her experience anticipates the way people of future generations will come to faith. The Gospel speaks to those who have not seen the risen Jesus (John 20:29), and Mary’s story shows that seeing the tomb, seeing the angels, and even seeing Jesus himself do not guarantee faith. Like Mary, others will be called to faith by the risen Jesus. This is reflected in Jesus’ comments about the good shepherd, who “calls his own sheep by name” and leads them out, and they recognize his voice (John 10:3-4, 16, 27). Jesus calls Mary by name outside the empty tomb, but he will also call others to recognize him, sending them as he sent Mary to tell others what has happened. (Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel, 125-26)

Bruce Chilton (b. 1949) agrees:

It is her experience that ultimately teaches the other disciples how to see Jesus as well. (Chilton, Mary Magdalene: A Biography, 130)

Mary Magdalene is emerging from her grief and awakening to a new reality. In this moment of recognition both Jesus and Mary Magdalene identify each other. Though their relationship will not be the same (John 20:17), Mary has found the Jesus for whom she is looking.

What about being called by name triggers Mary Madalene’s positive identification of Jesus? Why does John preserve Mary’s address in its original language? Is calling Jesus “Rabboni” equivalent to his calling her by her name? What is the most you have ever heard conveyed by a single word? When have you suddenly been able to perceive that God had been present in a situation long before you sensed it? In that instance, what prevented you from seeing God previously? In what ways is Mary Magdalene’s revelation a template for all who believe in the resurrected Jesus? Would you recognize Jesus if you saw him?

Mary is caught off guard and as such her response is completely unprompted. As in many impromptu utterances, her one word response is telling.

Rodney A. Whitacre (b. 1949) surmises:

Jesus calls her by the name he used for her before, and she responds with the title she used before [John 20:16]. She would naturally assume that their relationship could pick up where it left off and continue on as before. Jesus’ response, however, lets her know there has been a radical change in him and consequently in his relationship with his followers [John 20:17]. (Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 476)

Some have seen Mary’s use of “Rabboni” as a failure, or at best an incomplete understanding of the situation. Of the title “rabboni”, Karen L. King (b. 1954) regrets that it indicates “a relatively low standing on the hierarchical scale of Johannine Christological titles.” (King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, 131)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) traces:

Even when Jesus calls Mary by name, her pilgrimage is not over. In her initial reply she calls Jesus Rabbouni (my master), which suggests that she still thinks of Jesus in terms of her past friendship with him, as her teacher. This is verified by the translation the evangelist gives to the term—Teacher (John 20:16). At this juncture it becomes clear that it is no longer adequate to relate to Jesus as a great sage. He must now be seen as more that just a conveyor of Wisdom. Her reaction is of course natural and also involves her clinging to Jesus. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 331)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) critiques:

The present reference is the only instance of the term “rabbi” in the second half of John’s Gospel. Since John 13-21 is told from the vantage point of the exalted Jesus, Mary’s address of Jesus as “rabbi” indicates that she has not yet comes to terms with the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. (Ben Witherington III [b. 1951] 1995: 331). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 568-69)

Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) examines:

Mary Magdalene’s use of the title Rabbouni is often thought of as another sign of her ignorance. It is a “modest” title, says Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], “characteristic of the beginning of faith rather than of its culmination,” certainly falling far short of Thomas’ ‘My Lord and my God; in John 20:28. He is tempted to theorize that by using this “old” title the Johannine Magdalene is showing her misunderstanding of the resurrection: she thinks she can now follow Jesus in the same way she did during the ministry. Such thinking may indicate she has an inferior faith, and does not possess the Spirit: “[O]ne may wonder if her use of an inadequate title does not imply that only when the Spirit is given (John 20:22) is full faith in the risen Jesus possible.” Her use of the title “Lord” in John 20:18 makes this reasoning less plausible, but it is nevertheless common, in spite of her use of “Lord” in John 20:2 also. (Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament, 328)

Morna D. Hooker (b.1931) determines:

In case we do not see the significance of her words, the evangelist explains that they mean “my Teacher.” [John 20:16] She still doesn’t really understand. She knows only that Jesus has come back, the old Jesus, the Jesus she knew and loved. She supposes that in spite of everything that has happened, life will now go on just as before...When she calls him “Rabbouni,” Mary is clearly thinking in terms of her old relationship with the earthly Jesus. When she holds on to him, she is wanting to perpetuate that relationship. The time for that is past. A new era has begun. From now on, she must learn to “hold on” to him in a new, spiritual way. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, “Seeing and Believing”, 141-42)

Though Mary Magdalene recognizes Jesus, her identification is incomplete. Anthony J. Kelly (b. 1938) and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) assess:

A moment of recognition follows; yet her way of addressing Jesus is still according to her previous experience of him: “Rabbouni” (John 20:16b)—pointedly translated once again as “Teacher” (cf. John 1:38, 20:16). She is yet to acknowledge him as “the Lord” (John 20:18), in whom the glory of the Father is revealed. Jesus summons her into the luminous darkness of a new relationship to him: Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17a). She is to relate to him, not in terms of past experience, but as the one who has come from the Father and is not returning to him. (Kelly and Moloney, Experiencing God in the Gospel of John, 377)

Jesus is not merely an ethical teacher. Henry Gariepy (1930-2010) corrects:

It is not enough that we ascribe to Christ those titles of respect and tradition. We, too, must know Him as our risen Lord. We, too, have a mandate and mission to proclaim the Good News from a personal experience, ‘I have seen the Lord.’ Only a vibrant encounter with the resurrected Christ and a recognition of His mighty power leads us to know Him as He truly is and to share His message with others. In that discovery is our destiny. (Gariepy, 100 Portraits of Christ, 103-04)

Though no one enduring so much emotional turmoil ought be criticized, Mary Magdalene wrongly assumes that life will return to normal. This is seen as she tries to cling to Jesus and the Lord’s subsequent rebuffing of these efforts (John 20:17). Mary attempts to pick up where they left off, to recapture the past. But life can nonot revert to business as usual. As is often the case with death, Mary Magdalene must adjust to the rhythm of a new normal.

Her relationship with Jesus will take on new meaning. Though Mary Magdalene is ahead of the curve as the first to identify the risen savior, her revelation is incomplete. She is still Mary. Jesus, however, is no longer merely “Rabboni”.

When have you encountered someone whose personal transformation resulted in a changed relationship? What does Mary Magdalene’s identification of Jesus reveal of her relationship to him? Is she wrong to call him “Rabboni”? What should she have called Jesus? What do you call Jesus? How would you identify Jesus: lord, liar, lunatic, etc.?

“Recognizing isn’t at all like seeing; the two often don’t even agree, and it’s sometimes a less effective way of determining what is.” - Sten Nadolny (b. 1942), The Discovery of Slowness

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