In collaboration with Jeff Bradshaw, Pearl of Great Price Central has published 61 essays on the Book of Moses, which have all been cross-posted at The Interpreter Foundation. Jeff has published more than 15 additional essays as part of this same series. Unfortunately, due to constraints in resources, this research will not be published here at this time. We encourage readers to view these concluding essays by clicking on the following link: Book of Moses Essays 62–77. We would also like to thank Jeff for his invaluable contributions to Pearl of Great Price Central.
Readers may also be interested in the following new and upcoming publications relating to the Book of Moses:
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., Seely, David R., Welch, John W. & Gordon, Scott. 2021. Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities. Orem, UT; Springville, UT; Redding, CA; Tooele, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, FAIR, and Eborn Books.
One thing that has always perplexed readers of Genesis is the location of the two special trees in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew phrase corresponding to “in the midst” means literally “in the center.” Although scripture initially applies the phrase “in the midst” only to the Tree of Life,1 the Tree of Knowledge is later said by Eve to be located there, too.2
Elaborate explanations have been advanced as attempts to describe how both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge could share the center of the Garden.3 For example, it has been suggested that these two trees were actually different aspects of a single tree,4 that they shared a common trunk,5 or were somehow intertwined.6
The subtle conflation of the location of two trees in the Genesis account seems intentional, preparing readers for the confusion that later ensues in the dialogue between Eve and the serpent.7 The dramatic irony of the story is heightened by the fact that while the reader is informed about both trees, Adam and Eve are only told specifically about the Tree of Knowledge. In later Essays that recount the story of the Fall, we will see how Satan exploits their ignorance to his advantage.
A brief review of the symbolism of the “sacred center” in ancient thought will help clarify the important roles that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge played “in the midst” of the Garden of Eden.8
The Hierocentric Symbolism of the “Sacred Center”
Hugh Nibley, following Eric Burrows, defined “the term ‘hierocentric’ as that which best describes those cults, states, and philosophies that were oriented about a point believed to be the exact center and pivot of the universe.”9
Such sacred centers, described in different cultures, often coincide with the location of a “mountain or artificial mound and a lake or spring from which four streams flowed out to bring the life-giving waters to the four regions of the earth. The place was a green paradise, a carefully kept garden, a refuge from drought and heat.”10 A version of this perspective is reflected biblically in the layout of the Garden of Eden and the temple,11 as well as in the geography of later stories and prophecies of divinely directed scatterings and gatherings of Israel and other peoples.12
Explaining the choice of a tree to represent the concepts of life, earth, and heaven, Stordalen writes:
Every green tree would symbolize life, and a large tree—rooted in deep soil and stretching towards the sky—potentially makes a cosmic symbol.13 In both cases, it becomes a “symbol of the center.”14
The temple, described by Isaiah as “the mountain of the Lord’s house,”15 is likewise a symbol of the center. In ancient Israel, the holiest spot on earth was believed to be the Foundation Stone in front of the Ark within the Holy of Holies of the temple at Jerusalem. To the Jews, “it was the first solid material to emerge from the waters of creation,16 and it was upon this stone that the Deity effected creation.”17 As a famous passage in the Midrash Tanhuma states:
Just as a navel is set in the middle of a person, so the land of Israel is the navel of the world. Thus it is stated (in Ezekiel 38:12): “Who dwell on the navel of the earth.” The land of Israel sits at the center of the world; Jerusalem is in the center of the land of Israel; the sanctuary is in the center of Jerusalem; the Temple building is in the center of the sanctuary; the ark is in the center of the Temple building; and the foundation stone, out of which the world was founded, is before the Temple building.18
Figure 2. Masjid al-Haram at night.
In the symbolism of the sacred center, the circle is generally used to represent heaven, while the square signifies earth. Among other things, the intersection of the circle and square can be seen as depicting the coming together of heaven and earth in both the sacred geometry of the temple and the soul of the seeker of Wisdom.19 For example, the above photograph shows the sacred mosque of Mecca during the peak period of hajj.20 As part of the ritual of tawaf, hajj pilgrims enact the symbolism of the circle and the square as they form concentric rings around the rectangular Ka’bah.21 Islamic tradition says that near this location Adam had been shown the worship place of angels, which was directly above the Ka’bah in heaven,22 and that he was commanded to build a house for God in Mecca where he could, in likeness of the angels, “circumambulate … and offer prayer.”23
Figure 3. Gustave Doré (1832–1883): L’Empyrée, illustration for Paradiso Canto 31, Divine Comedy, by Dante Alighieri
Above we see Gustave Doré’s famous illustration of the “empyrean heaven.”24 This is a representation of the highest heaven as a realm lighted by the pure fire of God’s glory.25 Since the sacred center is located in heaven rather than earth, it is shown as a circle rather than a square. The heavenly throne is, in the words of Lehi, “surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.”26 Nibley points out: “A concourse is a circle. Of course [numberless] concourses means circles within circles and reminds you of dancing. And what were they doing? Surrounded means ‘all around.’ … It was a choral dance.”27
A related pattern was reenacted in ancient prayer circles. For example, describing the connection between the earthly and the heavenly realms in the quorum of ten men forming a Jewish minyan for prayer, Kogan writes: “On one level, the body that is formed below, the actual minyan, is entered by the Shekinah (the supernal holiness), and is thus the point of contact between God and Israel. Simultaneously, the minyan formed in the proper manner below unifies the heavenly realm above.”28
Figure 4. The Empyrean
As shown in this figure, the sacred center does not ultimately represent some abstract epitome of goodness, nor merely a ceremonial altar or throne, but God Himself.
Figure 5. J. James Tissot, 1836-1902: The Last Supper, 1886-1894
The Acts of John records that a prayer circle was formed by the apostles, with Jesus at the center: “So he told us to form a circle, holding one another’s hands, and himself stood in the middle.”29
Figure 6. David Lindsley, 1954-: Behold Your Little Ones, 1983.
The center is the most holy place, and the degree of holiness decreases in proportion to the distance from that center.30 For example, BYU Professor S. Kent Brown observes how at His first appearance to the Nephites Jesus “stood in the midst of them,”31 and cites other Book of Mormon passages associating the presence of the Lord “in the midst” to the placement of the temple and its altar.32 He also noted a similar configuration when Jesus blessed the Nephite children:
As the most Holy One, [the Savior] was standing “in the midst,” at the sacred center.33 The children sat “upon the ground round about him.”34 When the angels “came down,” they “encircled those little ones about.” In their place next to the children, the angels themselves “were encircled about with fire.”35 On the edge stood the adults. And beyond them was… profane space which stretched away from this holy scene.36
Jesus’ placement of the children so that they immediately surrounded Him—their proximity exceeding even that of the encircling angels and accompanying fire—conveyed a powerful visual message about their holiness: namely, that “whosoever … shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”37 Hence, Jesus’ instructions to them: “Behold your little ones.”38
Figure 7. Dixie L. Majers, 1934-: Lit Menorah with Tree of Life, 1985.
Moses’ vision of the burning bush brings together all three of the symbols of the sacred center we have discussed: the tree, the mountain, and the Lord Himself. Directly tying this symbolism to the Jerusalem Temple, Nicholas Wyatt concludes: “The Menorah is probably what Moses is understood to have seen as the burning bush in Exodus 3.”39 Thus, Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ, was represented to Moses as One who dwells at the top of a holy mountain, in the midst of the burning glory of the Tree of Life.
Figure 8. Top-Down Perspective on Zones of Sacredness in Eden and the Temple.
The Tree of Knowledge as the Veil of the Sanctuary
Having explored the concept of the sacred center, we will now return to the question of how both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge could have shared the center of the Garden of Eden.
Perhaps the most interesting tradition about the placement of the two trees is the Jewish idea that the foliage of the Tree of Knowledge hid the Tree of Life from direct view, and that “God did not specifically prohibit eating from the Tree of Life because the Tree of Knowledge formed a hedge around it; only after one had partaken of the latter and cleared a path for himself could one come close to the Tree of Life.”40
It is in this same sense that Ephrem the Syrian, a brilliant and devoted fourth-century Christian, could call the Tree of Knowledge “the veil for the sanctuary.”41 He pictured Paradise as a great mountain, with the Tree of Knowledge providing a boundary partway up the slopes. The Tree of Knowledge, Ephrem concludes, “acts as a sanctuary curtain [i.e., veil] hiding the Holy of Holies which is the Tree of Life higher up.”42 In addition, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sources sometimes speak of a “wall” surrounding whole of the Garden, separating it from the “outer courtyard” of the mortal world.43
Consistent with this idea for the layout of the Garden of Eden, Barker sees evidence that in the first temple a Tree of Life was symbolized within the Holy of Holies.44 She concludes that the menorah was both removed from the temple and diminished in stature in later Jewish literature as the result of a “very ancient feud” concerning its significance.45
For those who took the Tree of Life to be a representation of God’s presence within the Holy of Holies, it was natural to see the Tree of Life as the locus of the divine throne:46
[T]he garden, at the center of which stands the throne of glory, is the royal audience room, which only those admitted to the sovereign’s presence can enter.47
Ephrem’s view suggests that the Tree of Life was planted in an inner place so holy that Adam and Eve would court mortal danger if they entered uninvited and unprepared. Though God could minister to them in the Garden, they could not safely enter His world.48
Highlighting the merciful nature of God’s prohibition against eating the fruit of the Tree of Life prematurely, Elder Bruce C. Hafen has explained that the cherubim and a flaming sword were placed to “guard the way of the tree of life” until Adam and Eve completed their probation on earth and learned by experience to distinguish good from evil.49
Figure 9. Fall and Atonement as Eastward-Westward Movement.
“Eastward in Eden”
The figure above shows how circular and linear depictions of the layout of the Garden of Eden can be reconciled. Note also how some modern temples feature a linear progression toward a celestial room at the far end of the building,50 whereas in others the movement is in an increasingly inward direction. For example, in the Ogden and Provo Utah temples, “six ordinance rooms [are] surrounded by an exterior hallway” with the “celestial room… in the building’s center.”51
The “eastward” location of the Garden may thus be explained by its position relative to the Creator at the sacred center. Note that the initial separation of Adam and Eve from God occurs when they are removed from His presence to be placed in the Garden “eastward in Eden”52 —that is, east of the “mountain” where, in some representations of the sacred geography of Paradise, He is said to dwell. Such an interpretation also seems to be borne out in later events, as eastward movement is repeatedly associated with increasing distance from God.53 For example, after God’s voice of judgment visits them from the west,54 Adam and Eve experience an additional degree of separation when they were expelled through the Garden’s eastern gate.55 Cain was “shut out from the presence of the Lord” as he resumed the journey eastward to dwell “in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden,”56 a journey that eventually continued in the same direction—“from the east” to the “land of Shinar”—to the place where the Tower of Babel was constructed.57 Finally, Lot traveled east toward Sodom and Gomorrah when he separated himself from Abraham.58
On the other hand, westward movement is often used to symbolize return and restoration of blessings. Abraham’s “return from the east is [a] return to the Promised Land and… the city of ‘Salem,”59 being “directed toward blessing.”60 The Magi of the Nativity likewise came “from the east,” westward to Bethlehem, their journey symbolically enacting a restoration of temple and priesthood blessings that had been lost from the earth.61 Finally, the glorious return of Jesus Christ when He “shall suddenly come to his temple”62 is likewise symbolized by an east-to-west movement: “For as the light of the morning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, and covereth the whole earth, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”63
Conclusion
The central position of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden provides a parallel to the presence of God in the midst of His temple. The Tree of Knowledge may be a symbol of the protective veil initially concealing the Tree of Life from Adam and Eve. After their transgression of God’s “first commandments,”64 God placed cherubim and a flaming sword to prevent their premature entry into His presence, and sent Adam and Eve away “eastward.” However, God also provided a set of “second commandments”65 that would eventually enable the return of all those who would fully avail themselves of the gift of the Atonement.
This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: https://archive.org/details/150904TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses2014UpdatedEditionSReading ; Spanish: http://www.templethemes.net/books/171219-SPA-TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses.pdf, pp. 69–90.
Further Reading
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: https://archive.org/details/150904TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses2014UpdatedEditionSReading ; Spanish: http://www.templethemes.net/books/171219-SPA-TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses.pdf, pp. 69–90.
Nibley, Hugh W. 1951. “The hierocentric state.” In The Ancient State, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 10, 99-147. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991.
References
al-Tabari. d. 923. The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood. Vol. 1. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Biblioteca Persica, ed. Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Alexander, P. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 223-315. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/.
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008.
Andersen, F. I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 91-221. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Anderson, Gary A., and Michael Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and its Literature, ed. John C. Reeves. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.
Anderson, Gary A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Ashraf, Syed Ali. “The inner meaning of the Islamic rites: Prayer, pilgrimage, fasting, jihad.” In Islamic Spirituality 1: Foundations, edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, 111-30. New York City, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1987.
at-Tabataba’i, Allamah as-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn. 1973. Al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur’an. Translated by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. 3rd ed. Tehran, Iran: World Organization for Islamic Services, 1983.
Barker, Margaret. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1987.
———. “The holy of holies.” In The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, edited by Margaret Barker, 146-87. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.
———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.
———. Christmas: The Original Story. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008.
Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology 1, ed. Donald A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Berlin, Adele. Esther. The JPS Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Fishbane. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2001.
Bethge, Hans-Gebhard, and Bentley Layton. “On the origin of the world.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 170-89. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Bickmore, Barry Robert. Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. Ben Lomond, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), 1999.
Birrell, Anne. Chinese Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey. “Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry.” In Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: New Perspectives on Literary, Historical, and Textual Aspects of a Divinely Inspired Work, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon. Orem, UT; Springville, UT; Reading, CA; Toole, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, FAIR, and Eborn Books, 2021.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The tree of knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary.” In Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, edited by David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Matthew J. Grey. The 42nd Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (26 October, 2013), 49-65. Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2013. https://rsc.byu.edu/ascending-mountain-lord/tree-knowledge-veil-sanctuary ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfIs9YKYrZE.
Brinkerhoff, Val. The Day Star: Reading Sacred Architecture. 2 vols. Honeoye Falls, NY: Digital Legends Press, 2009.
Brodie, Thomas L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary. Oxford, England: Oxford University Pres, 2001.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Brown, S. Kent. Voices from the Dust: Book of Mormon Insights. Salt Lake City, UT: Covenant Communications, 2004.
Callender, Dexter E. Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Carroll, James L. “The reconciliation of Adam and Israelite temples.” Studia Antiqua 3, no. 1 (Winter 2003): 83-101.
Cassuto, Umberto. 1944. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998.
Colvin, Don F. Nauvoo Temple: A Story of Faith. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002.
Cowan, Richard O. Temples to Dot the Earth. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1989.
Dolkart, Judith F., ed. James Tissot, The Life of Christ: The Complete Set of 350 Watercolors. New York City, NY: Merrell Publishers and the Brooklyn Museum, 2009.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
Drower, E. S. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1937. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002.
Eden, Giulio Busi. “The mystical architecture of Eden in the Jewish tradition.” In The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by F. Regina Psaki and Charles Hindley. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism, 15-22. Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies in the History of Judaism, Global Publications, State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002.
Ehat, Andrew F. “‘Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?’ Sesquicentennial reflections of a sacred day: 4 May 1842.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 48-62. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Ephrem the Syrian. ca. 350-363. “The Hymns on Paradise.” In Hymns on Paradise, edited by Sebastian Brock, 77-195. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.
———. ca. 350-363. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by Sebastian Brock. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990.
Fisk, Bruce N. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story, and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
Giorgi, Rosa. Anges et Démons. Translated by Dominique Férault. Paris, France: Éditions Hazan, 2003.
Guénon, René. Symboles fondamentaux de la Science sacrée. Paris, France: Gallimard, 1962.
Hafen, Bruce C. The Broken Heart. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1989.
Hansen, Gerald E., Jr., and Val Brinkerhoff. Sacred Walls: Learning from Temple Symbols. Salt Lake City, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009.
Hennecke, Edgar, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1965.
Herbert, Máire, and Martin McNamara, eds. Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1989.
Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel, and David Rolph Seely. My Father’s House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1994.
Isar, Nicoletta. “The dance of Adam: Reconstructing the Byzantine choros.” Byzantino-Slavica: Revue Internationale des Études Byzantines 61 (2003): 179-204.
Jessee, Dean C. 1969. “The earliest documented accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.” In Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch and Erick B. Carlson, 1-33. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2005.
Jones, Dan. 1847. History of the Latter-day Saints, from Their Establishment in the Year 1823, to the Time When Three Hundred Thousand of Them Were Exiled from America Because of Their Religion in the Year 1846. Translated by Ronald D. Dennis. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2008.
Lundquist, John M. “What is reality?” In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 428-38. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.
———. The Temple: Meeting Place of Heaven and Earth. London, England: Thames and Hudson, 1993.
———. “Fundamentals of temple ideology from Eastern traditions.” In Reason, Revelation, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, 651-701. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002.
———. The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008.
Lupieri, Edmondo. 1993. The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics. Italian Texts and Studies on Religion and Society, ed. Edmondo Lupieri. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.
Major, John S. Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought: Chapters Three, Four, and Five of the Huainanzi. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Malan, Solomon Caesar, ed. The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan: A Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, and Other Eastern Works. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Reprint, San Diego, CA: The Book Tree, 2005.
Martin, Richard C., ed. Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. 2 vols. New York, City, NY: Macmillan Reference USA, Gale Group, Thomson Learning, 2004.
McBride, Matthew. A House for the Most High: The Story of the Original Nauvoo Temple. Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007.
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2-3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Newby, Gordon Darnell. A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications, 2002.
Nibley, Hugh W. 1951. “The hierocentric state.” In The Ancient State, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 10, 99-147. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1991.
———. 1975. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
———. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004.
Parry, Jay A., and Donald W. Parry. “The temple in heaven: Its description and significance.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 515-32. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Rashi. c. 1105. The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Vol. 1: Beresheis/Genesis. Translated by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg. ArtScroll Series, Sapirstein Edition. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1995.
Reeves, John C. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 1-284. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Schaya, Léo. 1958. The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah (L’homme et l’absolu selon la Kabbale). Translated by Nancy Pearson. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.
Seely, David Rolph, and Jo Ann H. Seely. “The crown of creation.” In Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference ‘The Temple on Mount Zion,’ 22 September 2012, edited by William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely. Temple on Mount Zion Series 2, 11-23. Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation/Eborn Books, 2014.
Shelemon. ca. 1222. The Book of the Bee, the Syriac Text Edited from the Manuscripts in London, Oxford, and Munich with an English Translation. Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. Reprint ed. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1886. Reprint, n. p., n. d.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.
Talmage, James E. 1912. The House of the Lord. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1998.
Townsend, John T., ed. Midrash Tanhuma. 3 vols. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing, 1989-2003.
Tvedtnes, John A. “Olive oil: Symbol of the Holy Ghost.” In The Allegory of the Olive Tree, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, 427-59. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Vilnay, Zev. 1932. The Sacred Land. Legends of Jerusalem 1. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973.
Weil, G., ed. 1846. The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud or, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, Compiled from Arabic Sources, and Compared with Jewish Traditions, Translated from the German. New York City, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1863. Reprint, Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2006. http://books.google.com/books?id=_jYMAAAAIAAJ. (accessed September 8).
Wenham, Gordon J. 1986. “Sanctuary symbolism in the Garden of Eden story.” In I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4, 399-404. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Wheeler, Brannon M. Prophets in the Quran: An Introduction to the Quran and Muslim Exegesis. Comparative Islam Studies, ed. Brannon M. Wheeler. London, England: Continuum, 2002.
Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2, 35-142. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Zlotowitz, Meir, and Nosson Scherman, eds. 1977. Bereishis/Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources 2nd ed. Two vols. ArtScroll Tanach Series, ed. Rabbi Nosson Scherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1986.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, Bildarchiv, E 1546-C, with the assistance of Eva Farnberger.
Figure 2. Public Domain, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Masjid-al-haram.jpg.
Figure 3. Illustration for Paradiso Canto 31, Divine Comedy (1308-1321) by Dante Alighieri. Public Domain, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_ Canto_31.jpg.
Figure 4. Public domain. Published in R. Giorgi, Anges, p. 63.
Figure 5. Image: 8 9/16 x 12 1/16 in. (21.7 x 30.6 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Purchased by public subscription, 00.159.220. Published in J. F. Dolkart, James Tissot, p. 206. With special thanks to Deborah Wythe and Ruth Janson.
2 Moses 4:9. See U. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, p. 111. Many commentators have “solved” the problem by assuming that the account originally spoke of only one tree, and that the Tree of Life was a late addition to the text. For a brief survey on the question of one or two trees, and related textual irregularities, see T. N. D. Mettinger, Eden, pp. 5-11.
6 E.g., Wahb bin Munabbih in al-Tabari, Creation, 1:106, p. 277. See also A. Birrell, Mythology, p. 233; L. Ginzberg, Legends, 5:91 n. 50; J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore, p. 96ff; J. A. Tvedtnes, Olive Oil, p. 430; B. M. Wheeler, Prophets, p. 23.
7 For a full and supportive analysis of this view, see T. N. D. Mettinger, Eden, especially pp. 34-41.
9 Ibid., p. 104. See Burrows, “Some Cosmological Patterns,” p. 46. Burrows further distinguishes “three cosmological patters corresponding to three ways of imagining the relation between heaven and earth. The first pattern is formed when the interest is at the center, on earth; the second when it is at the periphery, in heaven; the third may be considered a synthesis. … One might almost formulate a law that in the ancient East contemporary cosmological doctrine is registered in the structure and theory of the temples” (Burrows, “Some Cosmological Patterns,” p. 45).
10 Ibid., p. 110. For a survey of beliefs in the ancient Near East regarding the cosmic mountain at the center of the world, see N. Wyatt, Space, pp. 147–157.
11 See, e.g., J. M. Bradshaw, Tree of Knowledge,” 50–52; A. F. Ehat, Who Shall Ascend”; J. M. Lundquist, Reality; J. A. Parry et al., Temple in Heaven; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 112-116, 308-309; T. D. Alexander, From Eden, pp. 20-23; G. K. Beale, Temple, 66–80; G. J. Wenham, Sanctuary Symbolism”; R. N. Holzapfel et al., Father’s House, 17–19; J. Morrow, Creation”; D. R. Seely et al., Crown of Creation.”
12 To see the relevance of this conception for the story of Enoch in the Book of Moses, see J. Bradshaw, Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants.
13 Often symbolized as a cosmic tree, the temple also “originates in the underworld, stands on the earth as a ‘meeting place,’ and yet towers (architecturally) into the heavens and gives access to the heavens through its ritual” (J. M. Lundquist, Fundamentals, p. 675).
18 J. T. Townsend, Tanhuma, Qedoshim 7:10, Leviticus 19:23ff, Part 1, 2:309-310. See also J. M. Lundquist, Meeting Place, p. 7; J. M. Lundquist, Temple of Jerusalem, p. 26; Z. Vilnay, Sacred Land, pp. 5-6; O. S. Wintermute, Jubilees, 8:19, p. 73, 3:9-14, 27, pp. 59-60, 4:26, p. 63.
19 J. M. Lundquist, Fundamentals, pp. 666-671; cf. Matthew 6:10.
20 = Arabic “pilgrimage.” See R. C. Martin, Encyclopedia, 2:529-533; G. D. Newby, Encyclopedia, pp. 71-72.
27 H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 17, p. 211. See also B. R. Bickmore, Restoring, pp. 304-306; N. Isar, Dance of Adam; F. M. Huchel, Cosmic (Book).
29 E. Hennecke et al., NT Apocrypha, Acts of John, 94, p. 227.
30 Such symbolism illuminates the cosmology of the book of Abraham, where the planet Kolob is “set night unto the throne of God” (Abraham 3:9) with other planets in increasing distance from the center. The term Kolob “may derive from either of two Semitic roots with the consonants QLB/QRB. One has the meaning ‘to be near,’ as in Hebrew qarob (F. Brown et al., Lexicon, p. 898)… The other meaning is ‘center, midst,’ as in Hebrew qereb (ibid., p. 899)… In Arabic, qalb [heart, center] forms part of the names of several of the brightest stars in the sky, such as Antares… the constellation Scorpio… and Regulus… in the constellation Leo” (R. D. Draper et al., Commentary, pp. 289-290).
32 E.g., 2 Nephi 22:6; 3 Nephi 11:8, 21:17-18; cf. Isaiah 12:6; Jeremiah 14:9; Hosea 11:9; Joel 2:27; Micah 5:13-14; Moses 7:69; Zechariah 3:5, 15, 17. See S. K. Brown, Voices, pp. 150-151; R. D. Draper et al., Commentary, pp. 150-151.
39N. Wyatt, Space, p. 169. Recall also the description in Orson Pratt’s remembrance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision where, as the light drew nearer, “it increased in brightness, and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around, was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them” (D. C. Jessee, First Vision, p. 21; cf. D. Jones, History, p. 15).
40 M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, p. 101, cf. p. 96. See also L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:70, 5:91 n. 50.
41 Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 3:5, p. 92. Note that the phrase “in the midst” was also used for the heavenly veil in the Creation account (Moses 2:6).
42 Brock in ibid., p. 52. Significantly, a Gnostic text describes the “color” of the Tree of Life as being “like the sun” while the “glory” of the Tree of Knowledge is said to be “like the moon” (H.-G. Bethge et al., Origin, 110:14, 20, p. 179.
43 E.g., G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, 19:1a-19:1d, pp. 56E-57E; G. Weil, Legends, p. 53; M. Herbert et al., Irish Apocrypha, p. 2 (“wall of red gold”). In at least one version of the story, Eve’s transgression of the boundary God had set in the midst of the Garden had been preceded by her deliberate opening of the gate to let the serpent enter the Garden’s outer wall (G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, 19:1a-19:1d, pp. 56E-57E).
44 E.g., M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 6-7; M. Barker, Christmas, pp. 85-86, 140. By way of contrast, most depictions of Jewish temple architecture show a menorah as being outside the veil. See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 366-367 about the possibility that the story of the Garden of Eden included a “Tree of Life” on both sides of the veil.
Although the trees of Eden have been associated with the Garden Room of LDS temples since the time of Nauvoo (D. F. Colvin, Nauvoo Temple, p. 220; S. B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball, p. 117; M. McBride, Nauvoo Temple, pp. 264-265), representations relating to the ultimate Tree of Life are centered on the Celestial Room. For example, the Celestial Room of the Salt Lake Temple is “richly embellished with clusters of fruits and flowers” (J. E. Talmage, House of the Lord (1998), p. 134). The Celestial Room of the Palmyra New York Temple features a large stained-glass window depicting a Tree of Life with “twelve bright multifaceted crystal fruits” (G. E. Hansen, Jr. et al., Sacred Walls, p. 4).
46 Revelation 22:1-3, G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, Greek 22:4, p. 62E. A late Christian text speaks of the “royal seat of the High-king in Paradise, in the very center of Paradise, moreover, where the Tree of Life was situated” (M. Herbert et al., Irish Apocrypha, p. 6).
47 G. B. Eden, Mystical Architecture, p. 22; cf. the idea of “the luxuriant sacred tree or grove… as a place of divine habitation” in D. E. Callender, Adam, p. 51; cf. pp. 42-54. See also T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 173, 293. Recall the book of Esther, which recounts the law of the Persians that “whosoever… shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, [shall be] put… to death” (Esther 4:11). However, properly dressed in her royal apparel as a “true queen” instead of a “beauty queen” (see A. Berlin, Esther, pp. 51-52), Esther is—against all odds—granted safe admission to the presence of the king (Esther 5:1-2).
48 See Doctrine and Covenants 76:87, 112; Ephrem the Syrian, Paradise, 3:13-17, pp. 95-96.
49 B. C. Hafen, Broken, p. 30; cf. L. Schaya, Meaning, p. 16.
50 In ancient Israel and in the Kirtland Temple, the starting point for this movement was in the east, with the destination of most holiness being to the west. However, the Nauvoo and Salt Lake temples had their holiest places oriented to the east, where light would be greatest (V. Brinkerhoff, Day Star, 2:28, 30-31). The east doors of the Salt Lake Temple “are reserved for the Savior in his millennial return” (ibid., 2:30), however, in most modern temples, temple patrons enter through the door in a way that orients them “to the front of each of the initial ordinance rooms so that attention is focused on the concepts taught” (ibid., 2:31). “LDS temples constructed between 1890 and 1980 face all four points of the compass.” However, consistent with what seems to be an increased attention to temple symbolism, President Hinckley is remembered by one of the temple architects to have stated: “Where possible, movement in temples should be from east to west” (ibid., 2:30). For more on the direction of temple orientation and movement, see ibid., 2:27-31, 42-44.
52 Moses 3:8. To an ancient reader in the Mesopotamian milieu, the phrase “eastward in Eden” could be taken as meaning that the garden sits at the dawn horizon—the meeting place of heaven and earth. The pseudepigraphal Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan skillfully paints such a picture: “On the third day, God planted the Garden in the east of the earth, on the border of the world eastward, beyond which, towards the sun-rising, one finds nothing but water, that encompasses the whole world, and reaches unto the borders of heaven” (S. C. Malan, Adam and Eve, 1:1, p. 1). This idea corresponds to the Egyptian akhet, the specific place where the sun god rose every morning and returned every evening, and also to the Mandaean “ideal world” which was held to hang “between heaven and earth” (E. S. Drower, Mandaeans, p. 56; E. Lupieri, Mandaeans, p. 128). The Chinese K’un-lun also “appears as a place not located on the earth, but poised between heaven and earth” (J. S. Major, Heaven, p. 156). The gardens of Gilgamesh and the Ugaritic Baal and Mot were liminally located at the “edges of the world” or, in other words, “at the borders between the divine and the human world” (T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 285-286). Similarly, 2 Enoch locates paradise “between the corruptible [earth] and the incorruptible [heaven]” (F. I. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 8:5, p. 116; cf. p. 116 n. l).
By its very nature, the horizon is not a final end point, but rather a portal, a place of two-way transition between the heavens and the earth. Writes Nibley: “‘Egyptians… never… speak of [the land beyond the grave] as an earthly paradise; it is only to be reached by the dead.’ … [It] is neither heaven nor earth but lies between them… In a Hebrew Enoch apocryphon, the Lord, in visiting the earth, rests in the Garden of Eden and, moving in the reverse direction, passes through ‘the Garden to the firmament’ (See P. Alexander, 3 Enoch, 5:5, p. 260)… Every transition must be provided with such a setting, not only from here to heaven, but in the reverse direction in the beginning” (H. W. Nibley, Message (2005), pp. 294-295. See also H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 16, pp. 198-199). “The passage from world to world and from horizon to horizon is dramatized in the ordinances of the temple, which itself is called the horizon” (Siegfried Schott, cited in ibid., 16, p. 199). Situating this concept with respect to the story of Adam and Eve, the idea is that the Garden “was placed between heaven and earth, below the firmament [i.e., the celestial world] and above the earth [i.e., the telestial world], and that God placed it there… so that, if [Adam] kept [God’s] commands He might lift him up to heaven, but if he transgressed them, He might cast him down to this earth” (Shelemon, Book of the Bee, 15, p. 20).
Eastward orientation is not only associated with the rising sun, but also with its passage from east to west as a metaphor for time (N. Wyatt, Space, pp. 35-52; cf. B. N. Fisk, Remember, 1:7, p. 5). The Hebrew phrase mi-kedem (‘in the east’) in the Genesis account could also be translated “in the beginning” or “in primeval times” (T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 261-270; cf. Habakkuk 1:12). Likewise, for the Egyptians, the West, the direction of sunset, was the land of the dead—hence the many tombs built on the west bank of the Nile.
53 J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, pp. 41-42; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 267-268.
54 The phrase “in the cool of the day” in Moses 4:14 can be translated as “in the wind, breeze, spirit, or direction” of the day—in other words, the voice is coming from the west, the place where the sun sinks (M. Zlotowitz et al., Bereishis, pp. 122-123). Since the voice is coming from the west, some commentators infer that Adam and Eve were then located on the east side—the end of the Garden furthest removed from the presence of the Lord—and possibly related to what Islamic commentary calls “the courtyard” (e.g., A. a.-S. M. H. at-Tabataba’i, Al-Mizan, 1:209). In other words, they seem to have one foot outside the Garden already (see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 261, 280). Thus, God’s question to Adam in the Genesis account—“Where art thou?”—might be taken as deeply ironic. In the view of Didymus, it is really not a question but rather “a statement of judgment as to what Adam has lost” (cited in G. A. Anderson, Perfection, pp. 215-216). The idea of Adam and Eve being in the “courtyard” of Eden is an appropriate fit to the function of the outermost of the three divisions of the Israelite temple, a place of confession as the first step of reconciliation (J. L. Carroll, Reconciliation, pp. 96-99).
After a rapid sweep across the vast panorama of the Creation and the Garden of Eden in Moses 2-3, the scope narrows and the narrative slows to a more measured pace in Moses 4—and with good reason, for it is at this point that the purpose of Creation begins to unfold. John Henry Newman summed up a lesson from the combined accounts of the Creation and the Fall:1
It were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul … should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.
Thus, the gravity of the innocent choice made in Eden—and of moral choices we make on a daily basis—outweigh in the eyes of God the entire amoral universe. Of course, the statement is not meant to drag us down into guilt, but rather to encourage us to use the gift of moral agency wisely. Stating the same truth taught by Cardinal Newman in a positive vein, President Russell M. Nelson said:2
Nothing is more liberating, more ennobling, or more crucial to our individual progression than is a regular, daily focus on repentance.
Significantly, Satan became Satan or, more accurately, Lucifer became the Devil not simply because he advocated a wicked, deceitful proposal in the Council in Heaven, but more fundamentally because he refused to repent while the prospect of repentance was still open to him.
A Close Look at the Crucial Events in the Council in Heaven
In the uniquely informative account of Moses 4:1–4, the story of the two sons who appeared before the Council is told in remarkable brevity:
1. And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: “That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4. And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.”
Let’s look carefully at the account, phrase-by-phrase.
That Satan, whom thou hast commanded. “Satan” is a word of Hebrew origin, meaning an accuser or adversary. The qualifier (“whom thou hast commanded”) refers to 1:21, where Moses had commanded Satan “in the name of the Only Begotten” to depart.
here am I, send me. Draper et al. note that this statement carries the intrinsic claim “that the speaker is in the right path, ready to do the Lord’s bidding.”3 Likewise, Auerbach observes that the phrase is “not meant to indicate the actual place where Abraham is, but a moral position in respect to God, who has called to him — Here am I awaiting thy command”4 Indeed, it is significant that in Midrash Rabbah this phrase is associated with the sure confirmation of Abraham’s priesthood and kingship:5
Now Abraham said, “Here am I “— ready for priesthood, ready for kingship, and he attained priesthood and kingship. He attained priesthood, as it says, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4); kingship: “Thou art a mighty prince among us” (Genesis 23:5).
The fact that Satan’s intentions were already in direct opposition to God’s plan falsifies his claim of moral readiness, substantiating the scriptural assertion that the Devil is “a liar from the beginning.”6
Since Jesus Christ was already known by all to be God’s “Beloved and Chosen from the beginning” (v. 2), the fact that Satan sought to answer the call was in itself a direct challenge to the Father. Brent Top correctly concludes that “the Father’s question ‘Whom shall I send?’ was … a call for our commitment and common consent rather than a request for résumés.”7 Satan’s self-centeredness is fittingly reflected in the wording of his proposal. With passionate rapid-fire delivery, he narcissistically repeats the terms “I” and “me” six times in the short span of half a verse.
I will be thy son. Compare Moses 1:19 where, in a rage, Satan actually claimed the role he was here denied.
I will redeem. Whatever Satan exactly meant by his proposal to become the “redeemer” of all mankind, it was doubtless very different from what the Savior offered. Elder Spencer J. Condie commented: “Because [the Devil’s] plan … required no Atonement for sin, … he could save his own satanic skin from any suffering.”8
all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost. Joseph Smith summarized the situation: “The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the Devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the Devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him.”9 A retrospective summary of the same discourse clarifies that the only ones that Jesus said he could not save (in one of the three kingdoms of glory) were those who sinned against the Holy Ghost—in other words, the sons of perdition.10 Brigham Young affirmed: “None are condemned except those who have the privilege of receiving the words of eternal life and refuse to receive them.”11 “God will save all who are determined to be saved.”12 Ironically, Satan, the one who proposed a plan whereby no soul would be lost, became himself a soul who Jesus could not save. To him was given the name “perdition”—lost one.
surely I will do it.Satan seems not merely to be claiming that he will surely redeem all mankind, but also that he alone can do it and—even more arrogantly—that he can do it alone.
my Beloved.The phrase “my Beloved” is repeated twice in the verse, emphasizing the deep and personal regard of the Father for His Son. Contrast this with the distancing third-person reference that introduces the Adversary in verse 1: “That Satan.”
Father, thy will be done.Abraham 3:27 makes it clear that it was actually Jesus Christ who was the first to answer the Father’s request. In stark contrast to Satan’s speech, the Savior never once mentions the words “I” or “me,” being wholly focused on the will and the glory of the Father.
glory be thine forever. Jesus later contrasted His position to the one adopted by Satan: “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.”13
Lucifer and Jehovah as the Willing and Unwilling Sons
Satan’s duplicitous assertion of his moral readiness to fulfill the Father’s assignment, in contrast to the sincere proposition of Christ, seem to parallel the words of the two sons in Matthew 21:29-30, as first noted in the insightful analysis of John W. Welch.14 To understand why this may be the case, note that the term “go” in the King James Version of the Bible, v. 30, is not in the Greek text, but is entirely conjectural on the part of the translators.15 What if, instead of “go,” one supplied the words “Here am I” instead, which would have conveyed, thus rendered, the spirit of Lucifer’s response in Moses 4:1? Such a claim of moral readiness to do the Lord’s will would not only, in this case, be a good fit to the situation, but also would be consistent with both the original manuscripts of Moses 4:1 and also the corresponding Hebrew of Abraham’s response in Genesis 22:1 as we will now explain.
Observe that in Moses 4:1, both the OT1 and OT2 Joseph Smith Translation manuscripts have Satan saying “Behold I”16 rather than “Behold, here am I,” as rendered in later editions. Likewise, in striking concordance with Joseph Smith’s wording, Auerbach asserts that the Hebrew word behind Abraham’s similar reply to God (KJV Genesis 22:1 “Here I am” = Hebrew hinne-ni) ought to be translated literally as “Behold me”17 — or, as one might render it, less awkwardly, in French, “me voici.”
In light of all this, a reading for Matthew 21:29-30 consistent with this line of thinking might be proposed:
29. He answered and said, “It is not my will,”18 but afterward he felt sorry;19 regretted20 (or, perhaps, felt compassion21 ) and went.
30. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, “[Here am] I, Lord:”22 and went not.
Figure 2. Domenico Beccafumi, ca. 1486-1551: The Fall of the Rebel Angels, ca. 1528.
Satan Rebels and Is Cast Down
Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man. Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 underscores the irony of Satan’s efforts to destroy man’s agency by pointing out that it was “because of their agency” that many of the “hosts of heaven” were permitted to follow him in rebellion.
that I should give unto him mine own power. Doctrine and Covenants 29:36 specifically equates the “power” mentioned here with the “honor” craved by Satan in Moses 4:1.
by the power of mine Only Begotten. Moses had seen the power of the Only Begotten used in a similar way when, in His name, he commanded Satan to depart (Moses 1:21).
I caused that he should be cast down. Lehi records that an “angel of God … had fallen from heaven; wherefore he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God” (2 Nephi 2:17). Although Moses 4:6 and Abraham 3:28 say only that “many” followed Satan, Doctrine and Covenants 29:35 (compare Revelation 12:4) is more specific. The Lord, speaking of Satan’s rebellion said that it was “a third part of the hosts of heaven” that he “turned … away from me because of their agency.” Of course, the mention of a “third part” is meant, to signal a rough qualitative division not a precise mathematical calculation. It is possible that the fraction did not come close to approaching 33 1/3%.
father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. This is an “announcement of plot” for what will follow in the account of the Fall: Satan will lie to Eve in order to deceive her; her eyes will not suddenly be opened with the wisdom he promised, but rather she will become blind to her true situation, and she and Adam will be figuratively led captive in a vain effort to hide their transgression. All this because they did not hearken to the voice of the Lord.
This essay is updated, enlarged, and adapted from Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 243–246.
References
Auerbach, Erich. 1946. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Barker, Margaret. An Extraordinary Gathering of Angels. London, England: MQ Publications, 2004.
———. Temple Theology. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2004.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.
Butlin, Martin. William Blake. London, England: Tate Gallery Publications, 1978.
Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1910. William Blake. New York City, NY: Cosimo, 2005.
Condie, Spencer J. Your Agency: Handle with Care. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1996.
Danker, Frederick William, Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). Third ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
Faulring, Scott H., Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds. Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004.
Fisch, Harold. The Biblical Presence in Shakespeare, Milton, and Blake: A Comparative Study. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. 1939. Midrash Rabbah 3rd ed. 10 vols. London, England: Soncino Press, 1983.
Lewis, C. S. 1946. The Great Divorce. New York City, NY: Touchstone, 1996.
Newman, John Henry Cardinal. 1850. Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Concisdred in Twelve Lectures addressed in 1850 to the Party of the Religious Movement of 1833. Vol. 1. London, England: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897. https://books.google.com.sb/books?id=Dg56swEACAAJ. (accessed October 2, 2020).
Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.
Top, Brent L. The Life Before: How Our Premortal Existence Affects Our Mortal Life. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988.
Young, Brigham. 1856. “The emigrating saints were prompted by the spirit of God (Remarks by Brigham Young, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, November 9, 1856).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 4, 111. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
———. 1860b. “Religion, progress, and privileges of the Saints, etc. (Remarks by President Brigham Young, made at Ogden City, June 12, 1860).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 8, 80-84. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
———. 1861. “Varieties of mind and character—chastisement—freedom, etc. (Remarks by President Brigham Young, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 17, 1861).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 9, 121-25. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Figure 1. Photography and Rights Department, The Pierpont Morgan Library and Museum, RA 2001.76. Appreciation to Wayne Schrimsher for the digital scan.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? … When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?23 Upheld by God’s outstretched arms, the stars and angels loudly voice their praises.24 Beneath His arms, the sun-god Helios (or, alternatively, Logos, the horseman25 ) and Selene (or, alternatively, Wisdom, leading away Leviathan) represent day and night26 — one of the many oppositions to which mankind is continually subjected.27 Shut out from the glorious scenes on high, “Job, his wife and his friends kneel in a distinct, cave-like Earth below.”30
Figure 2. Art Resource, Inc., with the assistance of Jennifer Belt. Original at San Niccolo al Carmine, Siena (aka Santa Maria del Carmine), Pian de’ Mantellini, Siena, Italy.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!29 This painting features God presiding, with right arm raised, over the expulsion of Lucifer and his angels from heaven. God “appears as a monumental figure, seated in judgment. The bright red of his voluminous mantle and the golden hemisphere behind him ensure that this figure dominates the composition as a whole. The angelic company is organized into an orderly choir of seated figures surrounding God, with only a few of their companions engaged in expelling the rebel angels. Saint Michael has been placed much lower in the composition and acts as the principal agent between heaven and hell. … [H]olding a sword above his head, he … appears in a pale pink and golden yellow tunic, tied across the chest with pale blue ribbons. Beneath him, the fallen angels recline in a series of subterranean vaults lit by sulphurous light. The Devil has been transformed into a snarling monstrous beast that has the appearance of a classical chimaera.”30
Footnotes
1 J. H. C. Newman, Certain Difficulties 1, Lecture 8, p. 240.
10 J. Smith, Jr., 7 April 1844, as reported in E. England, Laub, p. 22. See Doctrine and Covenants 76:43-44; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 223; and ibid., Excursus 22: The Nature of Satan’s Premortal Proposal, p. 577.
24 In praise of this depiction, Chesterton writes: “When [Blake] gets the thing right he gets it suddenly and perfectly right. … We feel that the sons of God might really shout for joy at the excellence of their own portrait” (G. K. Chesterton, William Blake, p. 21).
In this Essay, we will explore how William Blake’s masterpiece describes Satan in his original glory. One can see in his perverse appropriation of the symbols of kingship not only his selfish aspiration to God’s own power, but also an anticipation of his ignominious fall from grace. Nowhere are the premortal events related to this theme described more fully and accurately than in Moses 4:1–4.
“Thou Wast Perfect in Thy Ways from the Day That Thou Was Created, Till Iniquity Was Found in Thee” (Ezekiel 28:15)
Blake’s illustration above is derived from a reading of v. 14 of the Latin version of Ezekiel’s prophecy that sees Lucifer as the “cherub with extensive wingspan.” The orb and scepter in his hands symbolize the power and authority from God given before his fall from heaven. He stands on the heavenly mountain, surrounded by “tiny, joyous figures embody[ing] the precious stones and beautifully crafted musical instruments mentioned in the Biblical text.”1
The fall of the king of Tyre in this lamentation from Ezekiel is frequently interpreted as having been typed on Adam,2 but has also been applied to the rebellion of Satan. The king is described as a “seal of perfection,”3 in essence Yahweh’s signet ring, faithfully bearing in every detail “the likeness of Yahweh” and the righteous exercise of “divine authority in the world.”4 The use of this term may also witness his perfection in the keeping of the covenant to which he is bound to his sovereign Lord.5 Previously, the king had dwelled “upon the holy mountain of God,”6 walking “up and down in the midst of stones of fire.”7 Verse 13 explicitly identifies this mountain as Eden.8 “Eden, as a luxuriant cosmic mountain becomes an archetype or symbol for the earthly temple,”9 a place from which the protagonist is to be “cast … out”10 because of the “multitude of [his] iniquities.”11 Significantly, God says that the king is not only to be cast out, but also that he is to be “cast … to the ground.”12 The Hebrew term eres (ground) has a double sense: “[o]n the one hand, it evokes an iconoclastic picture of an idol being hurled down and lying in ruins on the ground (eres)”13 rather than standing in the holy place of the sanctuary. On the other hand, it evokes the imagery of the king being thrown out of Eden to live on the earth (eres).14
The scepter and the orb shown in Satan’s hands are emblems of kingship. In British coronation ceremonies, the scepter is held in the right hand so that it may be used “to stop the growth of iniquity, protect the Holy Church of God and defend widows and orphans.”15 The British king or queen holds the Orb in the left hand in order to signify “the domination of Christ over the whole world.”16
To better comprehend the significance of the inspired imagery of Blake, it should be understood that the royal symbols of such monarchs are often modeled on much earlier precedents. For example, according to Endré Tóth, the garments and emblems of European kings resembled those of the Israelite high priest until the fashion of military dress eventually became the style.17
Likewise, the staff is the symbolic equivalent of the sword. Brannon M. Wheeler notes that “the association of swords with royal symbolism is found in many different cultural traditions. Swords are used in various cultures as symbols of investiture. The sword and the rod, for which it is a substitute, is also used as a mark of religious authority.”18
It should also be observed that although kings and queens are often pictured with an orb in their cupped hand, “no such ensign as an orb existed until the 11th century,”19 previous depictions in the ancient world having been entirely “symbolic.” And what kinds of things did these earlier depictions symbolize?
Stephen Smoot has traced the priestly symbolism of the cupped hand, from which the tradition of holding the Orb was derived, to Egyptian and Israelite sources.20 He concludes that “in ancient Israel, the action of filling the cupped hand or palm was directly associated with being sanctified and consecrated in a priestly setting.” In addition to temple or ritual usage, in ancient Egypt, Smoot demonstrates that in the mortuary realm, the outstretched, cupped hand could also represent a gesture of the beatified deceased receiving blessings.”
To highlight Lucifer’s perversity, Blake has conspicuously reversed the hands in which the emblems of European monarchy are normally held: what should be grasped by the right hand is portrayed in his left hand, and vice versa. His perversity reveals him to be fraud and a pretender — he is not now what he seems to be nor what yet he secretly aspires to become.
This essay is enlarged and adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, p. 224.
References
Anderson, Gary A. “The cosmic mountain: Eden and its early interpreters in Syriac Christianity.” In Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden, edited by G. A. Robins, 187-224. Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.
Calabro, David. “Rolling out the etymology of northwest Semitic sglt.” Presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Afro-Asiatic Congress, Naples, Italy 2008, 63-78.
Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 482, ed. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. London, England: T&T Clark, 2009.
Nichols, Beverley. The Queen’s Coronation Day: The Pictorial Record of the Great Occasion. Andover, UK: Pitkin Unichrome, 1953.
Odell, Margaret. Ezekiel. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commenary. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2005.
Ricks, Stephen D., and John J. Sroka. “King, coronation, and temple: Enthronement ceremonies in history.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 236-71. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Smoot, Stephen O. “The symbolism of the cupped hand in ancient Egypt and Israel: Iconography, text, and artifact.” In The Temple: Symbols, Sermons, and Settings. Proceedings of the Fourth Interpreter Foundation Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, 10 November 2018, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple on Mount Zion 5, in preparation. Orem and Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2021.
Tóth, Endre, and Kåroly Szelényi. The Holy Crown of Hungary: Kings and Coronation. 2nd ed. Budapest, Hungary: Kossuth Publishing, 2000.
Wheeler, Brannon M. Mecca and Eden: Ritual, Relics, and Territory in Islam. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Zimmerli, Walther. 1969. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Klaus Baltzer, Paul D. Hanson, S. Dean McBride, Jr. and Roland E. Murphy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Tate Gallery Picture Library with the assistance of Cressida Kocienski.
5 Calabro convincingly describes the imagery of a sealed contract or covenant associated with both cylinder seals and signet rings in northwest Semitic languages (D. Calabro, Rolling Out, especially pp. 68-72).
6 Note that the king sits “in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas,” the latter reference recalling the imagery of Eden as the source of the waters of the earth (Genesis 2:10).
7 Ezekiel 28:14. The “stones of fire” may be an allusion to the coals on the altar of the temple (P. M. Joyce, Ezekiel, p. 180).
8 Some readers object to the idea of Eden being located on a cosmic mountain, since this aspect is not mentioned explicitly in Genesis 2–3. See G. A. Anderson, Cosmic Mountain, 192-199 for careful readings that argue for just such a setting.
10 Ezekiel 28:16, Hebrew wa’abbedka. The longer phrase containing this verb can be read one of two ways: 1. “The guardian cherub drove you out” (P. M. Joyce, Ezekiel, p. 180; cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 86, highlighting the parallel with Adam; cf. Genesis 3:24); or 2. “I drove you out, the guardian cherub” (P. M. Joyce, Ezekiel, p. 180; cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 94, identifying the king as the cherub). The use of the verb ḥillēl (to profane) in the description of banishment in the first verb of the verse (wā’eḥallelĕkā, “I banished you”) alludes to the desecration of the holy place through the actions of the king (D. I. Block, Ezekiel 25-48, p. 116).
16 Ibid., p. 15. In another part of the coronation ceremony, the new monarch will hold the Scepter with the Cross in the right hand as an “ensign of power and justice” and the Rod with the Dove in the left as a “symbol of equity and mercy” (ibid., p. 18). Prior to all these ceremonies, the monarch is “divested of… robes” and “screen[ed]… from the general view” in order to be “imbued with grace” through the Archbishop’s anointing with holy oil “on hand, breast and forehead” (ibid., p. 14). About ablutions and anointing of kings in other cultures, see S. D. Ricks et al., King, pp. 241-244, 254-255. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 661-662.
The Tree of Life is certainly the most significant object in the Garden of Eden. However, its presence has always been somewhat of a puzzle to students of the Bible because it is only briefly mentioned in Genesis: once at the beginning of the story in connection with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,1 and once at the end when cherubim and a flaming sword are placed before it to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of its fruit.2
Though neither the nature nor the function of the Trees of Life and Knowledge are given explicitly in scripture, an understanding of temple teachings and layout can greatly illuminate this subject. This Essay will provide some background on the symbolism of these two trees. In Essay #60, we will see how their placement in the Garden of Eden relates to the layout of Israelite temples and makes their roles in the story of Adam and Eve apparent.
Symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
The Hebrew expression “knowledge of good and evil” can mean knowledge of what is good and bad, or of happiness and misery—or, most arguably, of “everything,” if “good and evil” can be taken to mean the totality of all that is, was, or is yet to be.3 The variegated light and darkness in the photograph of the fig tree shown above suggests the ambivalent nature of this symbolism.
Perhaps the most relevant hint on the meaning of the phrase comes from Deuteronomy 1:39, which speaks of little children “who… have no knowledge of good and evil,” suggesting “that they are not legally responsible for their actions.”4 In this sense, the term refers not to abstract conceptual knowledge but rather to the kind of “knowledge which infancy lacks and experience acquires.”5 Thus, sensing his inexperience, the young King Solomon prayed for the ability “to discern between good and evil” so that he would be able to function in his royal role.6 The kind of understanding implied by the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” is, as Claus Westermann7 concludes:
… concerned with knowledge (or wisdom) in the general, comprehensive sense. Any limitation of the meaning of “the knowledge of good and evil” is thereby excluded. It can mean neither moral nor sexual8 nor any other partial knowledge, but only that knowledge which includes and determines human existence as a whole, [the ability to master] … one’s own existence.
Consistent with this reading of the phrase, Latter-day Saint scripture refers to the ability to know “good from evil,”9 which presupposes “man’s power to choose the sweet even when it is harmful and reject the bitter even when beneficial.”10
The Prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge
The commandment specifying the prohibition of eating from the Tree of Knowledge is given in Moses 3:16-17:
16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou11 shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The phrase “thou mayest choose for thyself” is a Book of Moses addition to the Genesis account. The phrase serves to emphasize the fact that Adam and Eve are to be placed in a situation where they must exercise their agency in order to continue their progression. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, speaking while an apostle, offered the following paraphrase of the command:
The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat of it you will die.12
Fig Tree or Apple? Real or Figurative?
Jewish and Christian traditions often identify the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil as a fig tree, thus heightening the irony later on when Adam and Eve attempt to cover themselves with its leaves.13 The fruit of the fig tree is known for its abundance of seeds, thus an apron of green fig leaves is an appropriate symbol for Adam and Eve’s ability to “be fruitful and multiply”14 after the Fall.15 Less likely are suggestions that the forbidden fruit was to be symbolized by the grape,16 the pomegranate, or the apple (based on the correspondence between the Latin malus = evil and malum = apple).17
Latter-day Saint teachings about the nature of the “forbidden fruit” include a wide variety of opinions. For example, while President Brigham Young18 and Elder James E. Talmage19 understood the scriptures as describing a literal ingestion of “food” of some sort, Elder Bruce R. McConkie left the door open for a figurative interpretation: “What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality.”20 This topic will be discussed in more detail in a later Essay.
Symbolism of the Tree of Life
Since the Tree of Life is not specifically prohibited to Adam and Eve, commentators have often speculated on the question of whether Adam and Eve can be presumed to have eaten from it to prolong their lives so long as they remained in the Garden. However, a careful reading of Genesis itself seems to run counter to this view. For example, the use of the term “also” in Genesis 3:22 (Hebrew gam; “and take also of the tree of life”) suggests that they had not yet partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life at the time these words were spoken. Evidence for the use of gam in the sense of “new and additional activity” is provided in Genesis 3:6 as well (“and also gave to her husband”).21 Additionally, Barr studied 131 cases of “lest” (Hebrew pen; “lest he put forth his hand … and eat”) in the Bible “and found none which means ‘lest someone continue to do what they are already doing.’”22 Specifically affirming such a reading is a unique Samaritan exegesis of Genesis 2:16 that specifically excludes the Tree of Life from the original permission given to Adam and Eve to eat from the trees of the Garden.23
In contrast to the common idea that eating the fruit of the Tree of Life was merely a way to provide biological immortality, Elder Bruce R. McConkie maintained that its purpose was to confer the glory of “eternal life”24 — the kind of life that God lives—in whatever degree, of course, those who partake are qualified to receive it.25 Non-Latter-day Saint scholar Vos concurs, concluding that “the tree was associated with the higher, the unchangeable, the eternal life to be secured by obedience throughout the probation.”26 According to this view, Adam and Eve would not have been permitted to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life at their own discretion. Like each one of us, Adam and Eve’s only approach to the Tree of Life was by way of leaving the Garden of Eden to pass into mortality, and finally returning at last to take of the sweet fruit only when they had completed their probation and were authoritatively invited to do so.27
Olive Tree or Date Palm?
Ancient commentators sometimes identify the symbolism of the Tree of Life with the olive tree.28 Its extremely long life makes it a fitting representation for eternal life, and the everyday use of the oil as a source of both nourishment for man and fuel for light evokes natural associations when used in conjunction with the ritual anointing of priests and kings, and the blessing of the sick.29
A variety of texts also associate the olive tree with the Garden of Eden. For example, ancient traditions recount that on his sickbed Adam requested Eve and Seth to return to the Garden to retrieve oil — presumably olive oil — from the “tree of his mercy.”30 Recalling the story of the dove that returned to Noah’s ark with the olive branch in its mouth, one rabbinical opinion gives it that the “gates of the garden of Eden opened for the dove, and from there she brought it.”32 Two days after a revelation describing how war was to be “poured out upon all nations,” Joseph Smith designated Doctrine and Covenants 88, by way of contrast, as the “olive leaf … plucked from the Tree of Paradise, the Lord’s message of peace to us.”32
Figure 2. Olive Tree, Traditional Site of the Garden of Gethsemane, 1977
The date palm, on the other hand, is the symbol of the sacred tree in Assyrian mythology, and its longevity was a fitting symbol for long life to the Egyptians.33 The Old Testament Deborah rendered judgment as she dwelt under a palm tree,34 and the holiest places within the temples of Solomon and of Ezekiel’s vision were decorated with palms.35 As a sign of victory and kingship, palm fronds were a central part of the celebration of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem.36 The Qur’an also describes the palm as providing shelter and nourishment for Mary, who was said to have given birth to Jesus in the wilderness beneath such a tree.37
A single date palm tree “often yielded more than one hundred pounds of fruit per year over a productive lifetime of one hundred years or more. Akkadian synonyms for date palm included ‘tree of abundance’ (isu masru) and ‘tree of riches’ (isu rasu)—appropriate names for the vehicle of agricultural success and richness.”38
Figure 3. Palm Tree Near the Dead Sea, 2008
Also in favor of the date palm as a representation of the Tree of Life are the Book of Mormon accounts of the visions of Lehi and Nephi. Lehi contrasts the fruit of the Tree of Life to the fruit of the forbidden tree: “the one being sweet and the other bitter.”39 The fruit of the date palm—often described as “white” in its most desirable varieties, well-known to Lehi’s family, and likely available in the Valley of Lemuel where the family was camped at the time of the visions—would have provided a more fitting analogue than the olive to the love of God that was “sweet above all that is sweet.”40
The Oil-Bearing Tree of Mercy as a Third Tree?
Reconciling the competing conceptions of a Tree of Life that bears sweet fruit like the date as opposed to oil-producing fruit like the olive are ancient suggestions that the Garden story was concerned with three special trees rather than two.41 In addition to the original Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge, the third tree, an olive tree, is said to have sprouted up only after the sin of Adam. Thus, in a speculative mood, one might consider the possibility of two “Trees of Life”: the original Edenic tree with its sweet fruit, destined as the ultimate reward of the righteous and arguably represented within the Holy of Holies of the First Temple,42 and the subsequently sprouted oil-bearing “Tree of Mercy”43 that may have been symbolized in the menorah that is said to have stood in front of the veil in the Holy Place. In the parlance of the doctrines of the Restoration, we might see in this interpretation the oil-bearing olive tree as representing the Savior, His healing atonement, and the Gospel covenants explained to Adam and Eve after the Fall that would eventually enable them to return to the presence of the Father and the enjoyment of the sweet fruit of eternal life.44
Conclusions
The message about the results of eating of one or the other tree is clear. In both cases, those who eat become “partakers of the divine nature”45 — the Tree of Life symbolizing the means by which a fitting measure of eternal life is granted to the faithful, while the Tree of Knowledge enabling those who ingest its fruit to become “as gods, knowing good and evil.”46 The subsequent story of the Fall seems to teach, however, that eating of either tree in an unprepared state may bring dire consequences.
This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: https://archive.org/details/150904TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses2014UpdatedEditionSReading ; Spanish: http://www.templethemes.net/books/171219-SPA-TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses.pdf, pp. 61–127.
Further Reading
Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 127, 143, 145, 163–168, 189, 206–210, 225, 228–234, 248–250, 261, 277, 295–296, 341, 440–441, 460–462, 591–595, 640–641, 654, 657, 699–700, 727–729, 748–750, 755–756, 758, 778, 858–859.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. 2014 update ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2014. English: https://archive.org/details/150904TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses2014UpdatedEditionSReading ; Spanish: http://www.templethemes.net/books/171219-SPA-TempleThemesInTheBookOfMoses.pdf, pp. 61–127.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, pp. 49–51, 227.
Welch, John W., and Donald W. Parry. The Tree of Life: From Eden to Eternity. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2011.
References
al-Tha’labi, Abu Ishaq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim. d. 1035. ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya’ or “Lives of the Prophets”. Translated by William M. Brinner. Studies in Arabic Literature, Supplements to the Journal of Arabic Literature, Volume 24, ed. Suzanne Pinckney Stetkevych. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002.
Anderson, Gary A., and Michael Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and its Literature, ed. John C. Reeves. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.
Anderson, Gary A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Baldwin, Robert W. “The Legend of the True Cross: Piero’s Frescoes at Arezzo.” In A Critical History of Western Art, 1300-2000, edited by Robert W. Baldwin. New London, CT: Connecticut College (published only on CD-ROM), 2001. http://oak.conncoll.edu/rwbal/. (accessed September 1).
Bethge, Hans-Gebhard, and Bentley Layton. “On the origin of the world.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 170-89. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Brenton, Lancelot C. L. 1851. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Butterworth, Edric Allen Schofeld. The Tree at the Navel of the Earth. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 1970.
Cohen, Abraham, ed. The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. London: The Soncino Press, 1983.
Dogniez, Cécile, and Marguerite Harl, eds. Le Pentateuque d’Alexandrie: Texte Grec et Traduction. La Bible des Septante, ed. Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl. Paris, France: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2001.
Etheridge, J. W., ed. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London, England: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862, 1865. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. http://www.targum.info/pj/psjon.htm. (accessed August 10, 2007).
Gaylord, H. E., Jr. “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 653-79. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983.
Gileadi, Avraham. Studies in the Book of Mormon. n. p.: Hebron Books, 2005.
Griggs, C. Wilfred. “The tree of life in ancient cultures.” Ensign 18, June 1988, 26-31.
Hafen, Bruce C. The Broken Heart. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1989.
Halford, Mary-Bess. Lutwin’s Eva und Adam: Study — Text — Translation. Göppingen, Germany: Kümmerle Verlag, 1984.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.
Hertz, J. H., ed. The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs (with Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary) 2nd ed. Brooklyn, NY: The Soncino Press, 1970.
Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, Muhammad. d. 767. The Making of the Last Prophet: A Reconstruction of the Earliest Biography of Muhammad. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Isenberg, Wesley W. “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3).” In The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 139-60. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Koltun-Fromm, Naomi. “Aphrahat and the rabbis on Noah’s righteousness in light of the Jewish-Christian polemic.” In The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, edited by Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay. Traditio Exegetica Graeca, vol. 5, 57-71. Louvain, Belgium: Editions Peeters, 1997.
LaCocque, André. The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006.
Lowy, Simeon. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Studia Post-Biblica 28, ed. J. C. H. Lebram. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1977.
Madsen, Truman G. The Sacrament: Feasting at the Lord’s Table. Orem, UT: Amalphi Publishing, 2008.
———. 1994. “In a place called Gethsemane.” In Five Classics by Truman G. Madsen, 299-306. Salt Lake City, UT: Eagle Gate, 2001.
Malan, Solomon Caesar, ed. The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan: A Book of the Early Eastern Church. Translated from the Ethiopic, with Notes from the Kufale, Talmud, Midrashim, and Other Eastern Works. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Reprint, San Diego, CA: The Book Tree, 2005.
Matt, Daniel C., ed. The Zohar, Pritzker Edition. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.
Matthews, Robert J. “The probationary nature of mortality.” In Alma: “The Testimony of the Word.” Papers from the Sixth Annual Book of Mormon Symposium, 1991, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. Book of Mormon Symposia 6, 47-60. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1992. Reprint, Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2008.
McConkie, Bruce R. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1985.
———. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1989.
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2-3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Müller, F. Max. “Bundahis.” In Pahlavi Texts: The Bundahis, Bahman Yast, and Shayast La-Shayast (including Selections of Zad-sparam), edited by F. Max Müller. 5 vols. Vol. 1. Translated by E. W. West. The Sacred Books of the East 5, ed. F. Max Müller, 1-151. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1880. Reprint, Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation. 3 vols. Vol. 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14. Brown Judaic Studies 104, ed. Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.
Nibley, Hugh W. “On the sacred and the symbolic.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 535-621. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994. Reprint, Nibley, Hugh W. “On the Sacred and the Symbolic.” In Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, edited by Stephen D. Ricks. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 17, 340-419. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2008.
———. 1975. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
O’Reilly, Jennifer. “The trees of Eden in mediaeval iconography.” In A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 136, eds. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, 167-204. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992.
Ricks, Stephen D. “Olive culture in the second temple era and early rabbinic period.” In The Allegory of the Olive Tree, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, 460-76. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Ryen, Jon Olav. The Tree in the Lightworld: A Study in the Mandaean Vine Motif. Oslo, Norway: Unipub/Oslo Academic Press (Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo), 2006.
Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Scholem, Gershom, ed. 1941. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York City, NY: Schocken Books, 1995.
———. 1974. Kabbalah. New York City, NY: Dorset Press, 1987.
Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1954-1956.
———. Fall, Atonement, Resurrection, Sacrament (Delivered at the University of Utah Institute of Religion, January 19, 1961). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Institute of Religion, 1961.
———. 1957-1966. Answers to Gospel Questions. 5 vols. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1979.
Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.
Starr, James. 2007. “Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of deification?” In Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, edited by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, 81-92. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.
Talmage, James E. 1915. Jesus the Christ. Classics in Mormon Literature. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1983.
Tóth, Endre, and Kåroly Szelényi. The Holy Crown of Hungary: Kings and Coronation. 2nd ed. Budapest, Hungary: Kossuth Publishing, 2000.
Tvedtnes, John A. “Olive oil: Symbol of the Holy Ghost.” In The Allegory of the Olive Tree, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, 427-59. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Westermann, Claus, ed. 1974. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary 1st ed. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.
Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Young, Brigham. 1854. “‘I propose to speak in a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare,’ a sermon delivered on 8 October 1854.” In The Essential Brigham Young. Classics in Mormon Thought 3, 86-103. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1992.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Photograph DSC02933, 21 May 2008. Copyright, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.
Figure 2. Photograph J-102, 1977. Copyright, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.
Figure 3. Photograph DSC02894, 19 May 2008. Copyright, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.
5 J. H. Hertz, Pentateuch, p. 8; cf. J. E. Faulconer, Adam and Eve, pp. 19-20.
6 1 Kings 3:9; cf. Targum Yerushalmi: “the tree of knowledge, of which anyone who ate would distinguish between good and evil” (cited in J. W. Etheridge, Onkelos).
7 C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 247-248; cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, Eden, pp. 61-63.
8 Sarna writes: “Against the interpretation that [the fruit represented carnal knowledge] is the fact… that sexual differentiation is made by God Himself [Moses 2:27], that the institution of marriage is looked upon… as part of the divinely ordained order [Moses 2:25], and that… ‘knowledge of good and bad’ is a divine characteristic” (N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 19; see Moses 4:11, 28). Westermann concurs, concluding that the opening of the eyes experienced by Adam and Eve in Moses 4:13 “does not mean that they become conscious of sexuality” (C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 251). It is later, immediately following the account of their expulsion from Eden, that we are given the significant detail that “Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters” (Moses 5:2. See J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 30).
9 In contrast to the Bible, which exclusively employs the term “good and evil,” (Genesis 2:9, 17; Genesis 3:5, 22; Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 19:35; Proverbs 31:12; Isaiah 5:20; Jeremiah 24:3; Amos 5:14; Matthew 12:35; Luke 6:45; Hebrews 5:14; cf. 2 Nephi 2:18, 15:20; Alma 29:5, 42:3; Moses 3:9, 17; Moses 4:11, 28; Moses 5:11; Abraham 5:9, 13; JS-H 1:33), the Book of Mormon and the book of Moses contain nine instances of the similar phrase “good from evil” (2 Nephi 2:5, 26; Alma 12:31, 29:5; Helaman 14:31; Moroni 7:15-16, 19; Moses 6:56). Though, admittedly, the difference in connotation between these terms is not entirely consistent across all scriptural references to them (see e.g., Alma 12:31 and Moses 4:28), one might still argue for a distinction between the knowledge Adam and Eve attempted to acquire when they determined to eat the forbidden fruit (and would eventually receive in its fullness when they had successfully finished their probation), and that which they gained later through the experience of repeated choice in a fallen world. Unlike the former attempt to gain knowledge that had come in response to Satan’s deception and as the result of moral autonomy exercised in transgression of divine instruction, the essential knowledge attained gradually by Adam and Eve during their later period of mortal probation would depend on their hearkening to the “Spirit of Christ” (Moroni 7:16, 19), mercifully made available to them through the power of redemption (2 Nephi 2:26), and enabling them to “know good from evil… with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night” (Moroni 7:15).
11 Whereas the Hebrew text uses the singular “thou,” implying that the commandment was given to Adam alone, the Greek Septuagint uses the plural “you” (L. C. L. Brenton, Septuagint, Genesis 2:17, p. 3; C. Dogniez et al., Pentateuque, Genesis 2:17, pp. 140-141). The idea that both Adam and Eve were both present to hear this command from God was not uncommon in Jewish and early Christian tradition (G. A. Anderson et al., Synopsis, 32:1, p. 36E; G. A. Anderson, Perfection, pp. 81-84).
12 J. F. Smith, Jr., Fall. See also J. F. Smith, Jr., Answers, 4:81. The unique phrasing of this commandment is noted by Elder Smith: “In no other commandment the Lord ever gave to man, did he say: ‘But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself’” (J. F. Smith, Jr., Doctrines, 1:114).
13 E.g., D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, Be-Reshit 1:36b, p. 229.
15 Similarly, in the Zoroastrian Bundahishn, the special tree standing near to the Tree of Life is called the “tree of many seeds” (F. M. Müller, Bundahis, 9:5, 18:9, 27:2, pp. 31, 66, 99-100). A Coptic text says that the leaves of the Tree of Knowledge “are like fig leaves. Its fruit is like a good appetizing date” (H.-G. Bethge et al., Origin, 110:22-23, p. 179). The fig tree also is prominent as a symbol in the New Testament, and at a crucial point in Jesus’ ministry became the subject of a curse (Matthew 21:18-20; 24:32; Luke 13:6-9; John 1:48; James 3:12; cf. Joel 2:22).
16 The story of Noah’s drunkenness is often given as the basis for this identification—see JST Genesis 9:24. For examples, see A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, p. 49; H. E. Gaylord, Jr., 3 Baruch, 6:15-17, p. 669; H. W. Nibley, Sacred, pp. 577-579; H. W. Nibley, Message (2005), p. 308; M. Ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, Making, p. 37. On the possibility of polemical motivations for the identification of the forbidden fruit as the grape, see N. Koltun-Fromm, Aphrahat.
17 Or perhaps: Latin pomum (fruit) = French pomme (apple) (A. LaCocque, Trial, p. 95 n. 47).
18 B. Young, 8 October 1854, p. 98. President Young taught that Adam and Eve “partook of the fruit of the Earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of Earth.”
19 J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 19. Elder Talmage describes Eve’s transgression as “indulgence in food unsuited to [her] nature.”
21 V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, p. 209. See also T. N. D. Mettinger, Eden, p. 20.
22 T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 230-231. However, slightly weakening Barr’s claim, there are two exceptions among the 131 instances: Exodus 1:9 and 2 Samuel 12:27.
24 B. R. McConkie, New Witness, p. 86; cf. A. Gileadi, Studies, p. 10; B. C. Hafen, Broken, p. 30.
25 Doctrine and Covenants 88:28-32; R. J. Matthews, Probationary Nature, p. 56.
26 Cited in V. P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, p. 209 n. 6. Note that in the vision of Lehi there is not the same ultimacy when the fruit is eaten, since some, “after they had tasted of the fruit… were ashamed… and… fell away” (1 Nephi 8:28).
41 See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 166-167, 210, 658, 755-756. The imagery of three trees recalls the two Menorot that flank the scroll shrine in Palestinian synagogue mosaics (N. Wyatt, Space, p. 169). In Zechariah’s vision, a seven-branched menorah is described as standing between two olive trees that provide a divine supply of oil and symbolizing “two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:14). The fact that these two trees symbolize anointed ones—probably understood at the time as the champions of temple reconstruction Joshua and Zerubabbel (Zechariah 1-8, Haggai)—reinforces the concept that such trees can represent individual persons.
In Christian imagery a related idea was often visually represented by a cruciform tree flanked by two small identical trees from Paradise (J. O’Reilly, Iconography, pp. 176, 178, 186, 188, 192-193). The centrally depicted “Tree of Mercy,” said in other sources to have been planted by Seth over the grave of Adam, would be destined to bear “the fruit of the crucified Christ” (R. W. Baldwin, Legend. See also W. W. Isenberg, Philip, 73:15-19, p. 153; J. O. Ryen, Mandaean Vine, pp. 214-215, 221). Note the visual correspondence to the two thieves, crucified on either side of the Savior (Matthew 27:38).
The flanking trees depicted on the Holy Crown of Hungary surrounding an enthroned Christ are identified as heavenly cypresses (E. Tóth et al., Holy Crown, pp. 23, 28). In imagery going back to pre-Christian times, the paired trees represent “the cypress-tree and life-giving water, the pattern of the two ways, to left or to right” (E. A. S. Butterworth, Tree, p. 216).
42 See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, p. 658, 755-756. See also Ezekiel 41:20 which says, in describing the Holies in Solomon’s temple, that “From the ground unto above the door were cherubims and palm trees made, and on the wall of the temple.”
43 See, e.g., M.-B. Halford, Eva und Adam, pp. 279-281.
44 Intriguingly, there are hints of an “atonement” that is to take place among the trees of the Garden of Eden. In the Zohar, the originally unified Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge is split by the transgression of Adam and Eve, though a promise is given that these trees would one day be made one again (G. Scholem, Trends, p. 232, see also 236 and 404–5 n. 105; G. Scholem, Kabbalah, pp. 112, 124–28, 166–68; D. C. Matt, Zohar 1, pp. 85, 222). The same theme is found in the mural of Ezekiel at Dura Europos, where, at the time of Israel’s ultimate restoration, two split olive trees are brought back together into one (J. M. Bradshaw, Ezekiel Mural, p. 29).
45 2 Peter 1:4. For recent exegesis of this phrase, see J. Starr, Partakers.
In this Essay, we review the instructions given to Adam and Eve: the commandments to be fruitful and multiply and not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge; the instruction for Adam to cleave to Eve, the most unique of God’s creations; and the commandment for them to “dress” and “keep” the Garden. As with other parts of this rich story, there is far more than meets the eye when the details are fully appreciated.
The First Two Commandments to Adam and Eve
The illustration above shows God creating Eve and then instructing the couple. It was created under the direction of Herrad of Hohenbourg a twelfth-century abbess under who was responsible for assembling a comprehensive and copiously illustrated compendium of knowledge and salvation history, called Hortus Deliciarum (Garden of Delights).1 The details of the depiction draw on traditions from outside of Genesis:
· The commandment to be fruitful and multiply (Moses 2:27). As was discussed in Essay #50, an essential part of the plan was for Adam and Eve to have children. In the middle of the drawing above, a Tree of Life has sprouted human faces resembling Adam and Eve, attesting to ancient traditions about individual premortal existence.2This “Tree of Souls”3which, in Jewish legend, represented the heavenly Tree of Life, was thought to produce “new souls, which ripen and then fall from the tree into the Guf, the Treasury of Souls in Paradise. There the soul is stored until the angel Gabriel reaches into the treasury and takes out the first soul that comes into his hand” so it can be born into mortality.4
· The commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:16–17). Gary A. Anderson points out an interesting divergence between Genesis story and the drawing featured here: “Whereas Genesis 2 recounts that Adam was created first (2:4–7), given a commandment (2:16–17), and only then received a spouse (2:19–24), the Hortus Deliciarum has it that Adam was created, then Eve was drawn from his rib, and finally both were given a commandment.”5At right, God gestures toward the Tree of Knowledge in warning as He takes Adam by the wrist. At the same time, Eve raises her arm in what seems a gesture of consent to God’s commandment.6
Eve’s Fivefold Uniqueness
Donald W. Parry sees a “five-fold uniqueness” in the creation of Eve that is related in Moses 3:7
1.Creation as forming vs. building. While the Hebrew verb used to describe Adam’s creation is yṣr — to form or fashion — the verb used for Eve is bnh — to build, “recall[ing] the building of temples and altars.” The terms is also used “with regard to women bearing and delivering children.”8
2.Formed from the ground vs. built from a living creature. Whereas Adam and the animals were formed from ’adamah, the ground, Eve was built from a ṣela, traditionally translated as a “rib” but perhaps more accurately translating as a “side,” containing both flesh and bone. Hence, Adam’s exclamation of joy: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.”9Richard Draper et al. observe that the expression “does not mean that Eve’s physical body was derived from Adam but rather that the bodies of Adam and Eve derive from a common source. … This interpretation is supported by the account of Jacob’s initial meeting with Laban. When Laban learned that Jacob was his sister’s son, he said, ‘Surely thou art my bone and my flesh’ (Genesis 29:14).”10
3.Eve was created while Adam slept. “Hebrew tardemah is used of abnormally heavy sleep, divinely induced.”11The image is one of transition from a former state into a new one, a “sleep and a forgetting.”12When the sleeping Adam lost the memory of his past, he also became ignorant of other things. The Apocalypse of Adam records Adam saying that “the first knowledge that breathed within us” left them and that “the eternal knowledge of the God of truth withdrew from me and your mother Eve.”13The awakening of Adam represents the beginning of his recovery from his state of ignorance. In the Apocalypse of Adam, he is instructed by “three men” of surpassing “glory.” Although in Adam’s new state of ignorance he was at first “unable to recognize” them, they proceeded to reveal knowledge to him about his Creator.
4.“It was not good that the man should be alone” (Moses 3:18). Prior to this point, every step of Creation had been pronounced “good,” but “Eve’s absence from the Creation was ‘not good.’”
5.‘Ezer. “Of all God’s creative works, she is singularly called ‘ezer.”14The Hebrew means “a helper or strength corresponding to him”—or, in other words, a completing counterpart. This term cannot be taken as demeaning because Hebrew ‘ezer, employed here to describe the intended role of the woman, is often used of God in His relation to man.”15President Howard W. Hunter said: “The Lord intended that the wife be … a companion equal and necessary in full partnership.”16Thus, in Moses 2, both man and woman are created in the image of God, and in Moses 3, they are described as corresponding strengths.17Targum Yerushalmi captures the sense when it refers to the woman as the man’s “yoke-fellow.”18
The Marriage of Adam and Eve
In Moses 3:22, God specifically says: “I … brought [Eve] unto the man.” “As noted in a midrash, the image may well be that of God playing the role of the attendant who leads the bride to the groom. Without doubt, the verse conveys the idea that the institution of marriage is established by God Himself.”19
God declared that a husband “shall cleave unto his wife.”20 “The underlying meaning of the [idea of two distinct entities becoming attached to one another while preserving their separate identities] becomes clear, if it is noted that the verb d-v-k [cleave] is often used to describe human yearning for and devotion to God.”21 “Sexual relations between husband and wife do not rise above the level of animality unless they be informed by and imbued with spiritual, emotional, and mental affinity.”22
When Moses 3:25 states that Adam and Eve “were both naked,” it means that they were no longer “clothed” with the memory and glory of their earlier state. The verse attests to the couple’s innocence, their lack of awareness of the initial change that had come over them at this point of the story — and of the greater change that was yet to come after the Fall, a greater change that they would try to correct at that later time with the putting on of the fig leaf apron.
Note that the verse is meant to prepare us for Moses 4:13.23 It “forms the transition to the next episode by means of a word play on ‘naked’ (Hebrew ’arom, plural ’arummim) and ‘shrewd’ (Hebrew ’arum). It also conveys an anticipatory hint at [how the two concepts are going to be related].”24 Approximating the Hebrew word-play in English, we might say (with Gordon Wenham) that the couple aspired to be “shrewd” (like the serpent), they ended up “nude.”25
The fact that Adam and Eve “were not ashamed” expresses the idea that while the two partners were as yet free from transgression they could stand “naked” in God’s presence without shame,26 being “clothed with purity”27 in what early commentators called “garments of light.”28
The Work of Adam and Eve
Given the picture of the naturally growing, life-sustaining yields of the Garden of Eden, coupled with the absence of any troublesome weeds, students of the Bible have made various attempts to understand how Adam and Eve managed to stave off the “curse of idleness”29 during their sojourn in that happy place. For example, supposing that the daily labors of the first parents must have closely mirrored our own, Matthew Henry imagined that the man and the woman were placed in Eden to improve on God’s arrangements for the beauty and productivity of the fruit trees placed there. He reasoned that: “Nature, even in its primitive state, left room for the improvements of art and industry.”30 Supposing that the “husbandman’s calling … was needed even in Paradise,” he drew out the lesson from God’s instructions to Adam and Eve to “dress” and “keep” the Garden that “[s]ecular employments will very well consist with a state of innocency and a life of communion with God.”31
However, in contrast to attempts to draw parallels between “secular employments” and the work of the first couple in Paradise, it is important to realize that the very point of the scriptural injunction in Moses 3:15 is to inform Adam and Eve that no labor of the ordinary kind was required so long as they qualified to remain in that place. In this view, any conception that they were to focus their energies on digging and pruning the trees of Eden is surely mistaken, since the account makes clear that “man’s food was ever ready at hand.”32
Instead, a different, and even more strenuous and demanding kind of work was required of Adam and Eve while they lived in the Garden of Eden. Consistent with the temple symbolism of Eden in Essay #55, we can conclude that Adam and Eve’s occupation in Paradise was “temple work.”
Moses 3:15 states that Adam and Eve were put in the Garden of Eden “to dress it, and to keep it.” The Hebrew terms in Genesis for “to dress” (abad) and “to keep” (shamar) respectively connote to “work, serve, till”33 and “keep, watch (guard), preserve.”34 Of course, these meanings are not, on the face of it, inconsistent with the practice of husbandry. However, when we recall the temple-like layout of the Garden of Eden35 and the fact that these are the very words that are used to describe the tabernacle duties of the Levites36 the phrase takes on deeper significance. Wenham remarked that “if Eden is seen then as an ideal sanctuary, then perhaps Adam should be described as an archetypal Levite.”37 John Sailhamer similarly comments:38
Man’s life in the garden was to be characterized by worship and obedience; he was a priest, not merely a worker and keeper of the Garden. … Throughout [Moses 3] the author has consistently and consciously developed the idea of man’s “likeness” to God along the same lines as the major themes of the Pentateuch as a whole, namely, the theme of worship and Sabbath rest.
In considering what occupied Adam and Eve’s time during their stay in the Paradise, remember that God had not yet declared an end to the period of sanctification He had purposed for the seventh day of Creation.39 The first couple was no doubt meant to “imitate the divine pattern”40 of sacred “rest,” paralleling in a general way mankind’s later weekly Sabbath-keeping.41
Conclusions
The idyllic setting of Eden, the commandments of a loving Father, and the companionship and strength afforded by a marriage partner set up what would seem to be the ideal conditions for happiness. However, so long as Adam and Eve remained in the Garden, their opportunities for progression were limited. In the next Essay, #58 we will discuss the symbolism of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. In a later Essay, we will examine the temple layout of the Garden of Eden in more detail. In this way we will better appreciate the opportunities provided by God and exploited by Satan.
This essay is adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 180–186, 228.
Further Reading
Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 180–186, 228.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, pp. 234–235.
Parry, Donald W. “Eve’s role as a ‘help’ (‘ezer) revisited.” In Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, edited by Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn and Shon D. Hopkin, 199–216. Orem and Provo, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University, 2020.
References
Anderson, Gary A. “The original form of the Life of Adam and Eve: A proposal.” In Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays, edited by Gary A. Anderson, Michael E. Stone and Johannes Tromp, 215-31. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000.
———. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Arnold, Bill T. Genesis. New Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. Ben Witherington, III. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/download/140123IGIL12014ReadingS.
Brodie, Thomas L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary. Oxford, England: Oxford University Pres, 2001.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Brown, Matthew B. The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple. American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 1999.
Cassuto, Umberto. 1944. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1: From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1998.
Christenson, Allen J. “The sacred tree of the ancient Maya.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 1 (1997): 1-23.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
Etheridge, J. W., ed. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London, England: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862, 1865. Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005. http://www.targum.info/pj/psjon.htm. (accessed August 10, 2007).
Friedman, Richard Elliott, ed. Commentary on the Torah. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2001.
Grant, Heber J. Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2002.
Green, Rosalie, Michael Evans, Christine Bischoff, and Michael Curschmann, eds. The Hortus Deliciarum of Herrad of Hohenbourg: A Reconstruction. 2 vols. London, England: Warburg Institute, 1979.
Henry, Matthew. 1706-1714. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. 1962, 1965, 1995. Heavenly Torah as Refracted Through the Generations. 3 in 1 vols. Translated by Gordon Tucker. New York City, NY: Continuum International, 2007.
Hunter, Howard W. The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1997.
MacRae, George W., William R. Murdock, and Douglas M. Parrott. “The Apocalypse of Paul (V, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd, Completely Revised ed, 256-59. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990.
Marden, Orison Swett. The Architects of Fate, or Steps to Success and Power. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1895.
Parry, Donald W. “Service and temple in King Benjamin’s speech.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 42-47.
———. “Eve’s role as a ‘help’ (‘ezer) revisited.” In Seek Ye Words of Wisdom: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D. Ricks, edited by Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn and Shon D. Hopkin, 199–216. Orem and Provo, UT: The Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University, 2020.
Peterson, Daniel C. “The Qur’anic tree of life.” Presented at the BYU Tree of Life Symposium, Provo, UT, September 29, 2006.
Richards, LeGrand. 1950. A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1976.
Ricks, Stephen D. “Oaths and oath-taking in the Old Testament.” In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, 43-53. Provo, UT: FARMS at Brigham Young University, 1999.
Robinson, Stephen E. “The Apocalypse of Adam.” BYU Studies 17, no. 2 (Winter 1977): 1-28.
Ryen, Jon Olav. The Tree in the Lightworld: A Study in the Mandaean Vine Motif. Oslo, Norway: Unipub/Oslo Academic Press (Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo), 2006.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 1-284. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Schwartz, Howard. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Thomas, M. Catherine. “Hebrews: To ascend the holy mount.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 479-91. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Wenham, Gordon J., ed. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 1987.
Westermann, Claus, ed. 1974. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary 1st ed. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.
Wyatt, Nicolas. “When Adam delved: The meaning of Genesis 3:23.” In ‘There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, edited by Nicolas Wyatt. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs, ed. Margaret Barker, 55-59. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Add. 144.a. Fol., with the assistance of Mme Zerkane and Ingrid Appert, as well as the help of Elizabeth Witchell of the Warburg Institute. From R. Green, et al., Hortus, Vol. 1, Original fol. HD 17r. (Figure 21); see also Vol. 2, p. 31, Figures 17-18, from the Bastard Calques plate 12, tracings of the original made ca. 1840.
Footnotes
1 Preserved for centuries at the Augustinian monastery of St. Odile at Hohenbourg, it was placed in the municipal library of Strasbourg about the time of the French Revolution. Though it was tragically destroyed during the siege of Strasbourg in 1870, portions of the text and illustrations had been previously copied, enabling the later partial reconstruction and publication of the work.
3 In support of this idea, Jewish tradition cites Hosea 14:9: “I am like a cypress tree in bloom; your fruit issues froth from Me” (H. Schwartz, Tree, 199, p. 165).
4 See Schwartz, 2004 #1235}, 199, p. 165. For descriptions of similar Gnostic and Mandaean concepts, see J. O. Ryen, Mandaean Vine, pp. 217, 223–224. In the New World, Mayans had an analogous teaching (A. J. Christenson, Sacred Tree, p. 11). As to the Tree of Life as a symbol for divine motherhood, see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 3-9g, p. 163; R. Green et al., Hortus, vol. 1, Figure 21; see also 2:31.
5 G. A. Anderson, Perfection, p. 83. Cf. G. A. Anderson, Original Form, pp. 216–217 n. 6; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, 49b, p. 252.
6 S. D. Ricks, Oaths, pp. 49–50. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Figure 5-3, p. 330.
16 H. W. Hunter, Teachings 1997, November 1994, p. 152.
17 R. E. Friedman, Commentary, p. 19. Thomas L. Brodie contrasts the positive picture of Woman at her creation with the highly negative Greek account of Hesiod (T. L. Brodie, Dialogue, p. 141).
29 This expression has become well-known because of the First Presidency statement on the Welfare Program in the October 1936 General Conference wherein it was said that “the curse of idleness would be done away with” (H. J. Grant, Teachings 2002, p. 115). However, it seems to have originated with Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Victorian preacher and advocate of the British Charity Organization Society. He characterized this society as “a charity to which the curse of idleness is subjected to the rule of the under-magistrate of earthly society: work.” By providing jobs to the poor, the society would fulfill what he saw as the biblical mandate “ to rid the impoverished of the curse of idleness” and to “rebuild self-reliance and productivity.” The phrase “curse of idleness” was further popularized in O. S. Marden, Architects—see esp. pp. 463ff.
Though idleness is not a virtue, neither is much of the world’s work, especially when fueled by greed, inequity, careerism, dishonesty, or when it fosters neglect of the higher purposes of life.
32 N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 18. But see the interesting discussion in N. Wyatt, When Adam.
33 F. Brown et al., Lexicon, pp. 712b-713c. Wyatt notes that the various shades of meaning in the Hebrew word ‘bd are an analogue to the common etymology in English of the terms “cultivate,” “cult,” and “culture” (N. Wyatt, When Adam, p. 56).
36 G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 67; cf. U. Cassuto, Adam to Noah, pp. 122-123; D. W. Parry, Service, p. 45. For example, Numbers 3:8 says that the Levites “shall keep (shamar) all the instruments of the Tabernacle of the congregation, and the charge of the children of Israel, to do the service (abad) of the Tabernacle.” Consistent with a general tendency to downplay or omit temple imagery, Islamic sources do not mention the duty of Adam and Eve to care for the Garden (D. C. Peterson, Qur’anic tree of life).
38 J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 45; cf. Deuteronomy 30:16, 1 Nephi 2:20.
39 Moses 3:2-3. Sailhamer observes: “Unlike the other days of Creation, … the seventh day stands apart from the other six days in not having an account of its conclusion. It is this feature of the narrative that has suggested a picture of an eternal, divine ‘Sabbath’… Consequently, immediately after the narrative of the Fall (Moses 4:27), …the verb asah points to an interruption of God’s ‘Sabbath’” when, as a final act of Creation, He made coats of skin for Adam and Eve” (ibid., pp. 38-39).
40 N. M. Sarna, Genesis, p. 15. Note that the words borrowed from Sarna were written in a context describing mankind’s weekly Sabbath, not the seventh day of Creation.
41 Like other events in the story of Genesis, the scriptural account also portrays the past as harbinger of the future. Writes Sailhamer: “At important points along the way, the author will return to the theme of God’s ‘rest’ as a reminder of what yet lies ahead (Moses 3:15; 8:9; Genesis 8:4; Exodus 20:11; Deuteronomy 5:14; 12:10; 25:19). Later biblical writers continued to see a parallel between God’s ‘rest’ in Creation and the future ‘rest’ that awaits the faithful” (J. H. Sailhamer, Genesis, p. 39. See Psalm 95:11; Hebrews 3:11).
In the book of Hebrews, readers are urged to enter into the “Lord’s rest” (Hebrews 4:3, 10). Explains Catherine Thomas: “They had tarried too long in the foothills of spiritual experience. Having ‘tasted of the heavenly gift,… the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come’ (Hebrews 6:4-6), they could no longer delay resuming the climb lest they lose the promise.… The promise that Paul refers to repeatedly is that same promise explained in Doctrine and Covenants 88:68-69: ‘Therefore, sanctify yourselves… and the days will come that you shall see [God]; for he will unveil his face unto you’” (M. C. Thomas, Hebrews, pp. 479-480).
In the depiction of the Garden of Eden above, Jan Brueghel the Elder masterfully fills the foreground of the scene with the abundance, happiness, and beauty of newly created life. From there, however, he skillfully draws our eyes toward the two tiny figures in the background ominously reaching for the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
However, it should not be forgotten that prior to that event wherein Eve and Adam received crucial knowledge as a consequence of their transgression, an important test for knowledge was administered to Adam when he was required to go through a test of naming.
Though the story of the naming of the animals is couched in the Bible as a proof of Adam’s dominion and as a motivating prelude to the creation of Eve, there are hints in competing versions of the event that the account may not be as straightforward as it seems. Building on the foundation of Essay #39 that discussed a series of sacred names given to Moses representing important junctures in his mortal journey and heavenly ascent, this Essay describes an alternative Islamic interpretation of the event that understands Adam to be engaged, not in naming the animals, but rather in demonstrating his knowledge of secret names to the angels.
Animals or Angels?
Moses 3:19 recounts the well-known story of how Adam gave names to all the animals:
And out of the ground I, the Lord God, formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and commanded that they should come unto Adam, to see what he would call them; and they were also living souls; for I, God, breathed into them the breath of life, and commanded that whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that should be the name thereof.
Figure 2. Adam Enthroned, the Angels Prostrating Themselves before Him, 1576.
Intriguingly, the story in Jewish writings of what happened afterward differs significantly from other ancient sources. Whereas some strands of Jewish tradition, consistent with the thrust of the biblical account, record that the animals subsequently bowed to Adam, other Jewish, Christian, and Islamic accounts insist that it was the angels who paid homage to him.1
While it is impossible to reconstruct how and why these two versions of the story differ, it has been argued that some scriptural passages relating to angels were controversial and subject to tampering by Jewish scribes during the second temple period.2 We also know from the book of Revelation about the close association between beasts and angels, who worship together at God’s throne in heaven.3 It does not seem impossible that in some contexts “beasts” were interpreted as “angels” by readers familiar with such imagery.
With these considerations in mind, we will consider a parallel tradition from Islamic sources that appears in place of the episode of the naming of animals.4 In a manner similar to temple initiates in other cultures, Adam — before the Fall and after having been given instruction by God — is said in these sources to have been directed to recite a series of secret names to the angels in order prove that he was worthy of the elevated status of priest and king that had been conferred upon him.5
What Was the Nature of the Test?
It is seen specifically as a test of knowledge. Ida Zilio-Grandi comments that:
While in the Bible God lets Adam choose the names of things, in the Qur’an it is God who teaches — who reveals therefore—the names to Adam. … Extremely high value is attributed to knowledge. … Indeed, it is not by obedience that the ability to represent God in the governance of the world is measured, but by knowledge.6
What Was the Nature of the Names Involved?
There are several different opinions about the nature of the names involved. With respect to Adam’s purported premortal accomplishment, Qur’an commentators themselves “dispute which particular names were involved; various theories [taking the position that] they were the names of all things animate and inanimate, the names of the angels, the names of his own descendants, or the names of God.”7
Mahmoud Ayoub writes similarly of the diversity of opinions on the matter:
Much disagreement has arisen among commentators regarding the words that Adam received from his Lord. … Ibn ‘Arabi says that these were ‘lights and states or stations of the realm of dominion and power and the realm of the subtle spirits. … It may also be that Adam received from God gnoses [hidden knowledge], sciences, and truths.’8
Regardless of the specifics, Al-Mizan asserts that this was not a simple dictionary recital showing off the power of Adam’s memory, but rather “something totally different from what we understand from the knowledge of names.”9 Alusi concludes that Adam’s saying of these names is “in the end, like saying the names of God, for power concerns God Himself in His ruling of the world.”10
The Names As Helps in Repentance and Reconciliation
Additional passages from Islamic sources connect the knowledge said to have been given to Adam in a general way to temple-related practices to effect repentance and reconciliation elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Though Islamic sources studiously avoid any reference to atonement rituals connected with the Jewish temple, a penitential function is accorded to a knowledge of certain words given to Adam. Describing a separate incident that was said to have occurred after the Fall, Islamic writings recount that “Adam received (some) words from his Lord”11 that enabled him to repent and return to good standing with God, so he could eventually go back to the Garden of Eden.12
While Al-Mizan declines speculation about what specific words were revealed, it likewise elaborates on their function:
It was this learning of the words that paved the way for the repentance of Adam. … Probably, the words received at the time of repentance were related to the names taught to him in the beginning. … There must have been something in those names to wipe out every injustice, to erase every sin and to cure every spiritual and moral disease; … those names were sublime creations hidden from the heavens and the earth; they were intermediaries to convey the grace and bounties of Allàh to His creation; and no creature would be able to attain to its perfection without their assistance.13
The Names As Required Knowledge for Heavenly or Ritual Ascent
In the Qur’an, the specific means by which these “words” were meant to assist in the attainment of Adam’s perfection is left unspecified. However, an exchange of sacred words is implied in the accounts of conversations between Muhammad and heavenly guardians during his “night journey” (isra), when he ascended on a golden ladder (mi’raj) to the highest heaven.14 Moreover, the literature of mystical Judaism and Christian Gnosticism abounds with accounts of righteous prophets and sages who were taught how to advance past a series of celestial gatekeepers toward the presence of God by the memorization and use of sacred names and phrases.15
Is it possible that Adam himself received his name as part of the episode reported in Moses 3:19?16 It is difficult to say because the Hebrew word for Adam is used as a generic term for “the man” in the early chapters of Genesis. However, it seems significant that the final instance of naming in the story of the Garden and the Fall — Adam’s bestowal of a permanent proper name on Eve — occurs in immediate proximity to the account of God’s making coats of skin for the couple.17 In this connection, it may be significant that Islamic traditions associate a test of naming with the marriage of Adam and Eve.18
Just as the episode reported in 3:19 was considered by Islamic commentators to be a test of Adam’s knowledge of certain names as a measure of worthiness for his exalted role, so also was the story of the naming of Eve seen in precisely the same way. Thus, the test of Adam’s knowledge of certain names culminated in an examination to determine whether Adam could identify Eve and recite her name. Notice the words al-Tha’labi uses to describe the incident:19
When Adam awoke from his sleep he saw [Eve] sitting at his head. The angels said to Adam, testing his knowledge: “What is this, Adam?” He answered: “A woman.” They asked: “And what is her name?” he replied: “Eve (hawwa).”
Al-Tha’labi precises that when Adam and Eve were rejoined after the Fall “they recognized each other by questioning on a day of questioning. So, the place was named Arafat (= questions) and the day, ‘Irfah [= knowledge or recognition].”20
Conclusions
Whether or not traditions that revise the story of Adam’s naming of the animals and of Eve to refer to something like ancient temple naming practices are authentic, Latter-day Saints certainly have no quarrel with the idea that Adam and Eve received the fulness of the saving ordinances. Indeed, Joseph Smith taught explicitly that the origins of modern temple ordinances go back beyond the foundation of the world. For example, in 1835, as the Saints prepared to receive the ordinances that would be available to them in the Kirtland Temple, the Prophet stated:
The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years, it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.21
Adapted from Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 177–180, 183–184.
Further Reading
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Creation, Fall, and the Story of Adam and Eve. 2014 Updated ed. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Books, 2014. https://archive.org/details/140123IGIL12014ReadingS, pp. 177–180, 183–184.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey, and Matthew L. Bowen. “‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’: The Names of Moses as Keywords in the Heavenly Ascent of Moses.” In Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: New Perspectives on Literary, Historical, and Textual Aspects of a Divinely Inspired Work, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon. Orem, UT; Springville, UT; Reading, CA; Toole, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, FAIR, and Eborn Books, 2021, in preparation.
Draper, Richard D., S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes. The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005, pp. 234–235.
al-Kisa’i, Muhammad ibn Abd Allah. ca. 1000-1100. Tales of the Prophets (Qisas al-anbiya). Translated by Wheeler M. Thackston, Jr. Great Books of the Islamic World, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Chicago, IL: KAZI Publications, 1997.
al-Tabari. d. 923. The History of al-Tabari: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood. Vol. 1. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Biblioteca Persica, ed. Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989.
al-Tha’labi, Abu Ishaq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim. d. 1035. ‘Ara’is Al-Majalis Fi Qisas Al-Anbiya’ or “Lives of the Prophets”. Translated by William M. Brinner. Studies in Arabic Literature, Supplements to the Journal of Arabic Literature, Volume 24, ed. Suzanne Pinckney Stetkevych. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002.
at-Tabataba’i, Allamah as-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn. 1973. Al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur’an. Translated by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. 3rd ed. Tehran, Iran: World Organization for Islamic Services, 1983.
Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur’an and Its Interpreters. Vol. 1. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984.
Barker, Margaret. “Beyond the veil of the temple: The high priestly origin of the apocalypses.” In The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, edited by Margaret Barker, 188-201. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.
———. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. London, England: T & T Clark, 2003.
———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.
Bednar, David A. “Honorably hold a name and standing.” Ensign 39, May 2009, 97-100.
bin Gorion, Micha Joseph (Berdichevsky), and Emanuel bin Gorion, eds. 1939-1945. Mimekor Yisrael: Classical Jewish Folktales. 3 vols. Translated by I. M. Lask. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1976.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey, and Matthew L. Bowen. “‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’: The Names of Moses as Keywords in the Heavenly Ascent of Moses.” In Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses: New Perspectives on Literary, Historical, and Textual Aspects of a Divinely Inspired Work, edited by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, David R. Seely, John W. Welch and Scott Gordon. Orem, UT; Springville, UT; Reading, CA; Toole, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, FAIR, and Eborn Books, 2021.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2010.
Budge, E. A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Cave of Treasures. London, England: The Religious Tract Society, 1927. Reprint, New York City, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2005.
Gee, John. “The keeper of the gate.” In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Temples Throughout the Ages 2, 233-73. Provo, UT: FARMS at Brigham Young University, 1999.
Ginzberg, Louis, ed. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938. Reprint, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
Hamblin, William J., and David Rolph Seely. Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History. London, England: Thames & Hudson, 2007.
Josephus, Flavius. 37-ca. 97. “The Wars of the Jews.” In The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian. Translated from the Original Greek, according to Havercamp’s Accurate Edition. Translated by William Whiston, 427-605. London, England: W. Bowyer, 1737. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1980.
Madsen, Truman G. “‘Putting on the names’: A Jewish-Christian legacy.” In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 458-81. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.
Mathews, Edward G., Jr. “The Armenian commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian.” In The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays, edited by Judith Frishman and Lucas Van Rompay. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, 143-61. Louvain, Belgium: Editions Peeters, 1997.
Milstein, Rachel, Karin Rührdanz, and Barbara Schmitz. Stories of the Prophets: Illustrated Manuscripts of Qisas al-Anbiya. Islamic Art and Architecture Series 8, ed. Abbas Daneshvari, Robert Hillenbrand and Bernard O’Kane. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 1999.
Monneret, Jean-Luc. Les Grands Thèmes du Coran. Paris, France: Éditions Dervy, 2003.
Morray-Jones, Christopher R. A. “Divine names, celestial sanctuaries, and visionary ascents: Approaching the New Testament from the perspective of Merkava traditions.” In The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, edited by Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 12, eds. Pieter Willem van der Horst and Peter J. Tomson, 219-498. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, A New American Translation. 3 vols. Vol. 1: Parashiyyot One through Thirty-Three on Genesis 1:1 to 8:14. Brown Judaic Studies 104, ed. Jacob Neusner. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985.
Ostler, Blake T. “Clothed upon: A unique aspect of Christian antiquity.” BYU Studies 22, no. 1 (1981): 1-15.
Ouaknin, Marc-Alain, and Éric Smilévitch, eds. 1983. Chapitres de Rabbi Éliézer (Pirqé de Rabbi Éliézer): Midrach sur Genèse, Exode, Nombres, Esther. Les Dix Paroles, ed. Charles Mopsik. Lagrasse, France: Éditions Verdier, 1992.
Porter, Bruce H., and Stephen D. Ricks. “Names in antiquity: Old, new, and hidden.” In By Study and Also by Faith, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 501-22. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.
Pritchard, James B. “The God and his unknown name of power.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, 12-14. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975.
Smith, Joseph, Jr. 1938. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1969.
Townsend, John T., ed. Midrash Tanhuma. 3 vols. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing, 1989-2003.
Weil, G., ed. 1846. The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud or, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, Compiled from Arabic Sources, and Compared with Jewish Traditions, Translated from the German. New York City, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1863. Reprint, Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2006. http://books.google.com/books?id=_jYMAAAAIAAJ. (accessed September 8).
Young, Brigham. 1853. “Necessity of building temples; the endowment (Oration delivered in the South-East Cornerstone of the Temple at Great Salt Lake City, after the First Presidency and the Patriarch had laid the Stone, 6 April 1853).” In Journal of Discourses. 26 vols. Vol. 2, 29-33. Liverpool and London, England: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1853-1886. Reprint, Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966.
Zilio-Grandi, Ida. “Paradise in the Koran and in the Muslim exegetical tradition.” In The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by F. Regina Psaki and Charles Hindley. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism, 75-90. Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies in the History of Judaism, Global Publications, State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002.
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Picture Library, The Royal Collection, with the assistance of Karen Lawson. Copyright 2007 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Figure 2. With the kind permission of Rachel Milstein. From R. Milstein, et al., Stories. Original in Topkapi Saray Museum Library, H. 1227: Ms. T-7, Istanbul, Turkey. For more detailed explanation of this figures, see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Figure 4-7, p. 225.
Footnotes
1 See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 225–226, 582–583 for a discussion of these traditions.
2 M. Barker, Beyond, pp. 195-196; M. Barker, Great High Priest: Temple Roots, p. 157.
4 J.-L. Monneret, Grands, p. 481 n. 12; cf. M. i. A. A. al-Kisa’i, Tales, p. 28; al-Tabari, Creation, 1:94-97, pp. 266-269; G. Weil, Legends, p. 22.
5Qur’an 2:30-33; cf. the idea of the naming as a test for Adam (vs. Satan) in al-Tabari, Creation, 1:97, p. 269; M. J. B. bin Gorion et al., Mimekor, 3, 1:6-7; L. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:62-64, 5:84-86 n. 35; E. G. Mathews, Jr., Armenian, p. 148 and n. 35; J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah 1, 17:4:2, p. 183; M.-A. Ouaknin et al., Rabbi Éliézer, 13, pp. 87-88.
6 I. Zilio-Grandi, Paradise, pp. 84, 87; cf. D&C 107:18-19, 130:18-19, 131:5-6. This is a theme often mentioned in the teachings of Joseph Smith.
7 Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve. Compare J. T. Townsend, Tanhuma, 6:12, 3:171.
15 See, e.g., C. R. A. Morray-Jones, Divine Names, passim. See also J. Gee, Keeper, p. 235. Among other ancient documents from around the world, the Egyptian Book of the Dead takes up a similar theme as it describes the manner in which initiates were to advance past a series of gatekeepers through his knowledge of certain names (B. T. Ostler, Clothed, pp. 8-10). For a detailed analysis specifically relating to the sacred names of Moses, see J. Bradshaw et al., ‘Made Stronger Than Many Waters’ (Ancient Threads).
Descriptions of this sort recall President Brigham Young’s succinct definition of the modern endowment ordinance: “Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being able to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” (B. Young, 6 April 1853 – B, p. 31).
Examples of the use of naming in similar functions abound. The Coptic Discourse on Abbaton explicitly associates “absolute authority” over the angels with a knowledge of their names (E. A. W. Budge, Cave, pp. 58-59; cf. Judges 13:17-18) and, elsewhere, Josephus records that the Essenes were under a vow to preserve the names of the angels (F. Josephus, Wars, 2:8:7, p. 477). Hence, the frequent theme of danger for any possessor of the name who revealed it to an unauthorized party (J. B. Pritchard, Unknown Name; cf. Judges 16:4-20; B. H. Porter et al., Names, pp. 508-513). Truman G. Madsen proposes that the idea that the “proper use of the name YHWH constitutes a covenant between Israel and her God” may be the reason behind the third commandment (T. G. Madsen, Putting, p. 459. According to Schimmel, a scholar of Islamic mysticism: “The Hope of discovering the Greatest Name of God has inspired many a Sufi who dreamed of reaching the highest bliss in this world and the next by means of this blessed name” (A. Schimmel, Mystical, p. 25; cf. B. H. Porter et al., Names, pp. 510-512). The dedicatory prayer for Solomon’s temple stressed that it was not meant to be a residence for God, since He “lived in his ‘dwelling place in heaven’ but that the ‘name of God’ dwelt in the Temple” (W. J. Hamblin et al., Solomon’s Temple, p. 27, cf. p. 182. See also 1 Kings 8:27-30; Doctrine and Covenants 110:7). The shout of the people at Christ’s triumphal entry becomes more understandable when translated as “Blessed is he who comes with the Name of the Lord” (“With” = “in’” in Hebrew (M. Barker, Hidden, p. 44; cf. Matthew 21:9). The meaning of being “willing to take upon [us] the name of Jesus Christ” in the sacrament is clear in light of temple ordinances (D. H. Oaks, Taking Upon Us; D. A. Bednar, Name, p. 98; Doctrine and Covenants 20:77; 109:22, 26, 79).
17 See the discussion of the nakedness and clothing of Adam and Eve in J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 234-240.
18 J.-L. Monneret, Grands, p. 481 n. 12; cf. M. i. A. A. al-Kisa’i, Tales, p. 28; al-Tabari, Creation, 1:94-97, pp. 266-269; G. Weil, Legends, p. 22.
19 A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, p. 48. Cf. p. 54. See also al-Tabari, Creation, 1:120, p. 291.
20 A. I. A. I. M. I. I. al-Tha’labi, Lives, p. 54. Cf. al-Tabari, Creation, 1:120, p. 291.
21 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 12 November 1835, p. 91; cf. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-12-november-1835/4. Of course, the Nauvoo Temple ordinances had not been given to the Saints at the time these statements were made, so it is evident that the Prophet is making a broad claim about the antiquity of saving ordinances here, including the general “order of the house of God,” and not making an assertion about the completeness and exactness in every detail of the ordinances the Saints had then received. After the Nauvoo endowment was administered on 4 May 1842, Elder Willard Richards wrote: “In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days” (ibid., 4 May 1842, p. 237; cf. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1841-december-1842/25) — asserting both the antiquity of the ordinance and the fact that this order was new to the select group to whom it had been given.
In Essay #32, we discussed the view of Latter-day Saint scholar Donald W. Parry that the outbound journey of the Creation and the Fall is mirrored in the inbound journey of the Tabernacle, the prototype for later Israelite temples.1The Garden of Eden can be seen as a natural “temple,” where Adam and Eve lived in God’s presence for a time. Significantly, each major feature of Eden (e.g., the river, the cherubim, the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree of Life) corresponds to a similar symbol in the Israelite temple (e.g., the bronze laver, the cherubim, the veil,2the menorah3 ).
Elsewhere in the ancient Near East, Creation, garden, and temple themes were also combined, as illustrated in this famous Mari Investiture panel from Old Babylon, created in the Abrahamic era. A study of this panel can enrich our study of the temple-like description of the Garden of Eden in Moses 3, preparing us for the temple themes we will encounter in the story of the Fall (Moses 4).
Figure 2. Line-drawing of the Mari Investiture Panel.
Garden and Temple Themes in Old Babylon
This mural was found the Court of the Palms at Mari, where excavations began in 1933. It dates from about 1800 BCE, possibly during the reign of King Yahdun-Lim.4 Most scholars believe that it represents the ritual by which the king’s right to rule was renewed each year.
Al-Khalesi argues that the central scene of the mural depicts “a religious ceremony taking place inside [an inner sanctuary] as viewed through an open door.”5 He concludes that the scene in the Investiture mural is a “figurative representation of the actual architectural form of the [inner sanctuary] and the statues which were originally set up inside it.”6 Since the ritual would have been witnessed by only a few people, al-Khalesi thinks that “the purpose of the mural was to illustrate the actual act of the ceremony—a given moment” to those standing outside.7
In the exact geometric center of the panel, we see a statue representing the goddess Ishtar conferring royal insignia on the king, highlighting the prime importance of this event in the annual kingship ritual.8 Below the investiture scene, in the lower half of the mural, we see “figures holding jars from which flow four streams,” with a seedling9 growing out of the middle, recalling the streams that flowed out from underneath the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.10 In the context of the Investiture Panel, the streams could be seen as suggesting the theme of ritual washings or libations as a prelude to the renewal of kingship.11
Note that the two sides of the Investiture panel are mirror images. The sequence of movement from the more public to the most private portions of the palace complex would correspond to a stepwise movement from the outer edges of the Investiture Panel toward its sacred center.
J. R. Porter writes of how the scene depicted in the mural “strikingly recall[s] details of the Genesis description of the Garden of Eden. In particular, the mural depicts two types of tree,” one type clearly being a date palm analogue to the Tree of Life. In the symmetrical side panels at the far left and right of the mural, two men climb each of the two date palms.12 In many traditions, sacred trees are identified with a human king,13 or with the mother of a king, whether human or divine.14 Like the two figures witnessing the investiture, two other individuals near date palms raise their hands in supplication,15 suggesting a parallel between the tree and the king himself. Like the Tree of Life, the king is an “archetypal receiver and distributor of divine blessing.”16 The palm tree on the right can clearly be seen as harboring a bird.17
As an intriguing parallel to the notion of the Tree of Knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary, note that two exemplars of the second type of tree are placed in immediate proximity to the most holy place — suggesting the possibility that they represented treelike wooden posts that would have supported a veil.18 These two trees are “guarded by mythical winged animals[—the Assyrian version of the] cherubim”19 who would be responsible for “the introduction of worshippers to the presence of a god.”20
Sequence of Ritual Events
Though differing in important details, scholars of Mari are in general agreement that the areas in the ritual complex have been laid out so as to accommodate a ceremonial progression of the king and his entourage toward the innermost sanctuary.21 We will review some of the themes of the king’s journey, including
·Creation
·A garden with a central tree bearing sweet fruit
·Sacrifice
·A veil held up by a second kind of “tree”
·Renewal of kingship.
Creation. Although we know little directly about the details of the Old Babylonian investiture ritual performed at Mari, it is certain that the fourth22 of the twelve days of the later Babylonian New Year akītu festival always included a rehearsal of the creation story, Enuma Elish (“When on high…”),23 a story whose theological roots reach back long before the painting of the Investiture Panel.24 In its broad outlines, this ritual text is an account of how Marduk achieved preeminence among the gods of the heavenly council through his victorious heavenly battles, and the subsequent creation of the earth and of mankind as a prelude to the building of Marduk’s temple in Babylon.25 The epic ends with the conferral upon Marduk of fifty sacred titles, including the higher god Ea’s own name, accompanied with the declaration: “He is indeed even as I.”26 Seen in this light, a better title for Enuma Elish might be “The Exaltation of Marduk.”27
Figure 3. Margueron’s reconstruction of the Court of the Palm with an artificial tree in the “exact center” of the open air space.
Garden with a central tree bearing sweet fruit. A tree, either real or artificial, typically took the central position in palace courtyards of the Babylonians and Assyrians,28 recalling the biblical account of the Tree of Life “in the midst” (literally “in the center”) of the Garden of Eden.29
In this attempted visual reconstruction of the Court of the Palm at Mari, the sacred date palm with its sweet fruit is placed in the exact center. A single date palm tree “often yielded more than one hundred pounds of fruit per year over a productive lifetime of one hundred years or more. Akkadian synonyms for ‘date palm’ included ‘tree of abundance’ (iṣu mašrû) and ‘tree of riches’ (iṣu rāšû)—appropriate names for the vehicle of agricultural success and richness.”30
The Investiture Panel is shown just to the right of the entry to the fore throneroom. Though the central palm no doubt dominated the courtyard symbolically and visually, the courtyard might also have been filled with potted trees and plants to create a luxurious garden.
The motif of eating sacred fruit is preserved in the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag, where Enki was cursed because he ate the carefully nurtured plants of Ninhursag, the mother-goddess.31 However, according to both early Mesopotamian and later Palestinian texts, date palms were not only a source of sweet fruit but also they sometimes were climbed to obtain access to a source of wisdom or warning that was termed “the conversation of palm trees.”32 The action of eating sweet fruit or honey from such a tree was associated in the Bible with the “opening of the eyes” and the attainment of “supernatural vision.”33 More generally in the ancient Near East, sacred trees were seen as a source of energy, grace, and power.34
Sacrifice. Following the king’s ordeal and a recital of the events of the creation, the royal party would make its advance from the gardenlike open space in the courtyard with its central palm. This is consistent with a sacrificial scene painted on the walls of the courtyard that has been “interpreted as representing the king … leading a ‘procession of several temple servants towards’ an enthroned god.”35 Texts from Mari tell us that the queen was the one who furnished sacrifices for the “Lady of the Palace,”36 presumably meaning the goddess Ishtar.
A veil held up by a second kind of “tree.” Scholars contrast the realism in the Investiture Panel depiction of the date palm to the representation of the second type of “Sacred Tree,” which seems to be “imaginary” or artificial in kind.37
As to the function of the second type of sacred tree, al-Khalesi concludes that it was “meant to symbolize a door-post.”38 From archaeological evidence, he conjectures that such posts could have provided supporting infrastructure for a partition made of “ornamented woven material.”39 This recalls the kikkisu, a woven reed partition ritually used in temples through which the Mesopotamian flood hero received divine instruction.40 Al-Khalesi cites the presence of a rectangular chink in the pavement of the inner throne room as evidence for the presence of tree-like gatepost.41 He conjectures that such posts could have provided supporting infrastructure for a partition made of “ornamented woven material.” If symmetrically placed, the gateposts would have defined a portal of about two meters in width.42 The neo-Hittite temple at ‘Ain Dara provides a parallel to such an arrangement in its screened-off podium shrine located at the far end of its main hall.43 In essence, the veil shielded the “Holy of Holies” of the Mari palace from public view, suggesting the same symbolic function as the Tree of Knowledge, which in Genesis hid the Tree of Life from view.44
Figure 4. Guardians of the gate with trees rising up immediately behind them. The central figure in the image labeled as A is the standing god.
Priests acting in the role of cherubim, shown above next to the treelike posts of the veil, would be responsible for “the introduction of worshippers to the presence of a god.”45
Figure 5. The upper register of the central portion of the Investiture Panel, showing the king being invested by the victorious Ishtar in the presence of intercessory goddesses and a divinized royal figure (at right).
Renewal of kingship. This scene seems to “depict a king being invested by the Mesopotamian fertility goddess Ishtar:46 Eve has been associated with such divine figures.”47
As one part of his initiation ceremony, the king would have touched or grasped the hand of the statue of the god of the palace. Within the innermost sacred chamber, the king raises his right hand, perhaps in an oath-related gesture.48 At the same time, his left hand receives the rod and coil that signified his worthiness for the prerogatives of his office. These two items of regalia are measurement tools used in construction, corresponding in their general function to the later symbols of the square and compass. They served as symbols of divinely authorized power.49
Conclusion
John Walton observed that “the ideology of the temple is not noticeably different in Israel than it is in the ancient Near East. The difference is in the God, not in the way the temple functions in relation to the God.”50 Of course, resemblances between authentic, revealed religion in Old Testament times and the religious beliefs and practices of other peoples do not simply imply that the Israelites got their religion from their neighbors. Rather, to believing Latter-day Saints, they provide “a kind of confirmation and vindication”51 that the Gospel was preached in the beginning and that ancient evidence of distorted fragments of truth found outside of biblical tradition may be the result of subsequent degeneration and apostasy.
Adapted from Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan J. Head. “The investiture panel at Mari and rituals of divine kingship in the ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 1-42. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba/vol4/iss1/1/.
References
al-Khalesi, Yasin M. The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 8, ed. Giorgio Buccellati. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1978.
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008.
at-Tabataba’i, Allamah as-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn. 1973. Al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur’an. Translated by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. 3rd ed. Tehran, Iran: World Organization for Islamic Services, 1983.
Barker, Margaret. The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 1987.
———. “Joseph Smith and preexilic Israelite religion.” BYU Studies 44, no. 4 (2005): 69-82.
———. The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 2007.
———. Christmas: The Original Story. London, England: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008.
Barrelet, Marie-Thérèse. “Une peinture de la cour 106 du palais de Mari.” In Studia Mariana, edited by André Parrot. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 4, 9-35. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1950.
Beale, Gregory K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology 1, ed. Donald A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Benz, Ernst. “Imago Dei: Man in the image of God.” In Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, Papers Delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978, edited by Truman G. Madsen. Religious Studies Monograph Series 4, 201-21. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1978.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. In God’s Image and Likeness 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2010.
———. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. Salt Lake City, UT: Eborn Publishing, 2010. www.templethemes.net.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M., and Ronan J. Head. “The investiture panel at Mari and rituals of divine kingship in the ancient Near East.” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 4 (2012): 1-42. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sba/vol4/iss1/1/.
Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. “The tree of knowledge as the veil of the sanctuary.” In Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, edited by David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Matthew J. Grey. The 42nd Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (26 October, 2013), 49-65. Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2013. https://rsc.byu.edu/ascending-mountain-lord/tree-knowledge-veil-sanctuary ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfIs9YKYrZE.
Butterworth, Edric Allen Schofeld. The Tree at the Navel of the Earth. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 1970.
Cameron, Ron, and Arthur J. Dewey, eds. The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780) ‘Concerning the Origin of His Body’. Texts and Translations 15, Early Christian Literature 3, ed. Birger A. Pearson. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979.
Cazenave, Michel. Encyclopédie des Symboles (Updated and expanded version of the German text of Hans Biedermann Knaurs Lexicon der Symbole). Translated by Françoise Périgaut, Gisèle Marie and Alexandre Tondat. Paris, France: Librairie Générale Française, 1996.
Clark, E. Douglas. “Cedars and stars: Enduring symbols of cosmic kingship in Abraham’s encounter with Pharaoh.” In Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, edited by John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid. Studies in the Book of Abraham 3, 37-55. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2005.
Clifford, Richard J., ed. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994.
Dalley, Stephanie. Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities. London, England: Longman Group, 1984.
———. “Ancient Mesopotamian gardens and the identification of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon resolved.” Garden History 21, no. 1 (Summer 1993): 1-13.
———. Esther’s Revenge at Susa: From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Drower, E. S., ed. The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1959. http://www.gnosis.org/library/ginzarba.htm. (accessed September 11, 2007).
Eaton, John H. Kingship and the Psalms. London, England: SCM Press, 1976.
Edson, E., and E. Savage-Smith. Medieval Views of the Cosmos. Oxford, England: The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2004.
Ferdowsi, Abolquasem. ca. 1010. Shahnama of Ferdausi. 9 vols. Translated by Arthur George Warner and Edmond Warner. Trubner’s Oriental Series. London, England: Kegan Paul, 1905-1925. Reprint, London, England: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2001.
Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 230, ed. Susanne Bickell. Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic Press Fribourg, 2007.
Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel, and David Rolph Seely. My Father’s House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament. Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1994.
Hoskisson, Paul Y. “The nīšum ‘oath’ in Mari.” In Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, edited by Gordon Douglas Young, 203-10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.
Jacobson, Howard, ed. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 1996.
Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1960. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. http://books.google.com/books?id=vYuRDcieF2EC&dq. (accessed September 29).
Lapinkivi, Pirjo. “The Sumerian sacred marriage and its aftermath in later sources.” In Sacred Marriages, edited by Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro, 7-41. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Lidzbarski, Mark, ed. Ginza: Der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer. Quellen der Religionsgeschichte, der Reihenfolge des Erscheinens 13:4. Göttingen and Leipzig, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, J. C. Hinrichs’sche, 1925. https://ia802305.us.archive.org/7/items/MN41563ucmf_2/MN41563ucmf_2.pdf. (accessed September 7, 2019).
Lundquist, John M. “What is reality?” In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 428-38. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1990.
Margueron, Jean-Claude. “La peinture de l’investiture et l’histoire de la cour 106.” In De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari: Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, edited by Önhan Tunca, 115-25. Liège, Belgium: Université de Liège, 1990.
———. “La peinture de l’Investiture: rhythme, mesures et composition.” In Von Uruk nach Tuttul, eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger, Studien und Aufsätze von Kollegen und Freunden, edited by Barthel Hrouda, Stephan Kroll and Peter Z. Spanos, 103-10. Munich, Germany: Profil Verlag, 1992.
———. “Mari: A portrait in art of a Mesopotamian city-state.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson. 4 vols. Vol. 2. Macmillan Library Reference, 885-99. New York City, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Four-Volumes-in-Two Edition, 2000.
———. Mari: Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire avant Jésus-Christ. Paris, France: Éditions A. et J. Picard, 2004.
Marinatos, Nanno. “The Minoan harem: The role of eminent women and the Knossos frescoes.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne (Homage à Ettore Lepore) 15, no. 2 (1990): 33-62. http://books.google.com/books?id=6bn5B-TgSHwC. (accessed October 2, 2010).
Martinez, Florentino Garcia. “Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez. 2nd ed. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson, 230-37. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.
Mead, George Robert Shaw, ed. 1921. Pistis Sophia: The Gnostic Tradition of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and His Disciples (Askew Codex). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.
Nibley, Hugh W. “The circle and the square.” In Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 12, 139-73. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1992.
———. 1952. Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley 5. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1988.
———. 1975. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005.
———. 1986. Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), Brigham Young University, 2004.
Parrot, André. Mission archéologique de Mari: Le palais. 3 vols. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Institut français d’archéologie de Beyrouth 68-70. Paris, France: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1958.
Parry, Jay A., and Donald W. Parry. “The temple in heaven: Its description and significance.” In Temples of the Ancient World, edited by Donald W. Parry, 515-32. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994.
Peterson, Daniel C. “Nephi and his Asherah: A note on 1 Nephi 11:8-23.” In Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, edited by Davis Bitton, 191-243. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998.
———. “Nephi and his Asherah.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 16-25.
Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “Sacred marriage and the transfer of divine knowledge: Alliances between the gods and the king in ancient Mesopotamia.” In Sacred Marriages, edited by Martti Nissinen and Risto Uro, 43-73. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Sacred trees, date palms and the royal persona of Ashurnasirpal II.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52, no. 2 (1993): 129-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/545566. (accessed October 11).
Porter, Joshua Roy. 1995. The Illustrated Guide to the Bible. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Pritchard, James B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 3rd with Supplement ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.
Rennaker, Jacob. E-mail message to Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, February 24, 2012.
Ricks, Stephen D. “Oaths and oath-taking in the Old Testament.” In The Temple in Time and Eternity, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks, 43-53. Provo, UT: FARMS at Brigham Young University, 1999.
Schmidt, Carl, ed. 1905. Pistis Sophia (Askew Codex). Translated by Violet MacDermot. Nag Hammadi Studies 9, ed. Martin Krause, James M. Robinson and Frederik Wisse. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1978.
Schwartz, Howard. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Seely, David Rolph, and Jo Ann H. Seely. “The crown of creation.” In Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference ‘The Temple on Mount Zion,’ 22 September 2012, edited by William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely. Temple on Mount Zion Series 2, 11-23. Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation/Eborn Books, 2014.
Slanski, Kathryn E. “The Rod and Ring: Enduring Icon of Just Kingship, 2100-850 BCE.” Proceedings of the British Academy, no. 136 (2008): 37-60. Reprint, Harriet Crawford (ed.), Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 37-60.
Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Speiser, Ephraim A. “The Creation Epic (Enuma Elish).” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd with Supplement ed, 60-72, 501-03. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972.
Stordalen, Terje. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000.
Talon, Philippe. “Enūma Eliš and the transmission of Babylonian cosmology to the West.” In Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999, edited by R. M. Whiting, 265-77. Helsinki, Finland: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/. (accessed March 10, 2011).
Visotzky, Burton L. “The conversation of palm trees.” In Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, edited by John C. Reeves, 205-14. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Wenham, Gordon J. 1986. “Sanctuary symbolism in the Garden of Eden story.” In I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4, 399-404. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. King and Saviour IV, ed. Geo Widengren. Uppsala, Sweden: Almquist and Wiksells, 1951.
Winter, Irene J. “The king and the cup: Iconography of the royal presentation scene on Ur III seals.” In Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, edited by Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati, Paolo Matthiae and Maurits Van Loon. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21, eds. Giorgio Buccellati, John L. Hayes and Patricia Oliansky, 253-68. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications and The International Institute for Mesopotamian Area Studies, 1986.
Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
———. “Arms and the king: The earliest allusions to the Chaoskampf motif and their implications for the interpretation of the Ugaritic and biblical traditions.” In ‘There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, edited by Nicolas Wyatt. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs, ed. Margaret Barker, 151-89. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005.
Yingling, E. Odin. “Give me back my idol: Investigating the dating of Enuma Elish.” Studia Antiqua: A Student Journal for the Study of the Ancient World 9, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 33-38. http://studiaantiqua.byu.edu/PDF/Studia%209-1.pdf. (accessed March 12, 2012).
Notes on Figures
Figure 1. Published in D. W. Parry, Garden, pp. 134–135. We have modified Lyon’s original drawing by moving the Tree of Life to the top of the mountain. It was originally placed slightly downhill. For the rationale for this modification, see J. M. Bradshaw, Tree of Knowledge.
Figure 2.Drawing from J. R. Porter, Guide, p. 28. With permission.
Figure 3. Image from J.-C. Margueron, Mari, p. 892. Muller, agreeing with Margeueron, accounted for the seeming discrepancy between the single palm tree of the palace and the symmetric doubling of the palm tree in the Investiture Panel by citing rotation and flattening as principles of artistic perspective in the ancient Near East (B. Muller, Aspects, pp. 135, 138). Differing from al-Khalesi, however, they applied this same principle to the statue of the goddess with the flowing vase and concluded that there was only one such statue, rather than two, and that it stood on a pedestal within room 64, facing the opening from courtyard 106 (J.-C. Margueron, Mari Métropole, pp. 508, 511 figure 499; B. Muller, Aspects, p. 138).
Providing evidence for artificial palm trees at Mari is a “stone column base… cut in imitation of palm scales,” suggesting that “columns resembling palm-tree trunks would have been quite at home here,” and the fact that the left side of the doorway into the Dagan temple seems to have been decorated with palm trunks (Harvey Weiss, cited in M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, p. 187).
Regarding the “exact center,” see J.-C. Margueron, La Peinture: Rhythme, p. 106. Cf. B. Muller, Aspects, p. 138; J.-C. Margueron, Mari Métropole, p. 511 figure 499. Margueron qualifies this conclusion, stating that the tree was “almost in the center of the courtyard” (J.-C. Margueron, Mari, p. 892).
Figure 4. Image from M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, p. 27 figure 11. With permission.
Figure 5. Image in J.-C. Margueron, Mari Métropole, p. 478. With permission.
Footnotes
1 D. W. Parry, Garden, p. 135. Cf. J. M. Lundquist, Reality; J. A. Parry et al., Temple in Heaven; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 112-116, 308-309; T. D. Alexander, From Eden, pp. 20-23; G. K. Beale, Temple, pp. 66–80; G. J. Wenham, Sanctuary Symbolism; J. A. Parry et al., Temple in Heaven; R. N. Holzapfel et al., Father’s House, pp. 17–19; J. Morrow, Creation; D. R. Seely et al., Crown of Creation.
2 For more on the correspondence between the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge and the temple veil, see J. M. Bradshaw, Tree of Knowledge. See also Essay #58.
3 In most depictions of Jewish temple architecture, the menorah is shown as being outside the veil—in contrast to the Tree of Life, which is at the holiest place in the Garden of Eden. However, Margaret Barker cites evidence that, in the first temple, a Tree of Life was symbolized within the Holy of Holies (e.g., M. Barker, Hidden, pp. 6–7; M. Barker, Christmas, pp. 85–86, 140; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 366–367). Barker concludes that the Menorah (or perhaps a second, different, representation in arboreal form?) was both removed from the temple and diminished in stature in later Jewish literature as the result of a “very ancient feud” concerning its significance (M. Barker, Older, p. 221, see pp. 221–232). Mandaean scripture describes a Tree of Life within the heavenly sanctuary as follows: “They … lifted the great veil of safety upward before him, introduced him, and showed him that Vine,” meaning the Tree of Life (M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, GL 1:1, p. 429:3–20; cf. E. S. Drower, Prayerbook, 49, pp. 45–46).
4 Long presumed to have been created in about 1760 BCE during the reign of its last independent sovereign, King Zimri-Lim, it has now been convincingly dated by Margueron to a period decades earlier, most likely during the reign of Zimri-Lim’s father, the great Yahdun-Lim (J.-C. Margueron, La Peinture et l’Histoire, p. 23). For a ritual interpretation and comparative analysis of the Mari Investiture Panel, see J. M. Bradshaw et al., Investiture Panel.
5 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 38. The ceremony may have taken place during an Babylonian New Year’s festival called the “Offerings of Ishtar” (S. Dalley, Mari and Karana, p. 134). Known in greater detail from later periods, the New Year’s festival represented the annual renewal of kingship.
6 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 38, emphasis in original.
8 Image from J.-C. Margueron, Mari Métropole, p. 510.
9 See Alma 32:41-42. Related imagery on a seal of Gudea suggests the idea that the sprout represents the new king (J. M. Bradshaw et al., Investiture Panel, p. 30).
11 A restoration of the mural revealed fish in the water. Note also that the entire mural “is surrounded by a border of running spirals, probably symbolizing water, and there is another band of dome-like motif with a knob at the top and the bottom of the mural. It is interesting to note that the latter motif is somewhat similar to the tassels which adorn the robe of Idi-ilum’s statue from Mari” (Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 38).
12 Associated in some cultures with the idea of heavenly ascent and the attainment of divine vision. See, e.g., E. A. S. Butterworth, Tree, p. 213.
13 Cf. Daniel 4:20, 22: “The tree… is thou, O king.” See also Judges 9:7-21, E. D. Clark, Cedars; T. Stordalen, Echoes, pp. 89-92, 100-101, 291; G. Widengren, King and Tree of Life, pp. 42-50.
14 N. Wyatt, Space, p. 170; cf. 1 Nephi 11:8-22, M. Barker, Joseph Smith, p. 76; M. Cazenave, Encyclopédie, p. 44; D. C. Peterson, Asherah 1998; D. C. Peterson, Asherah 2000 H. Schwartz, Tree, p. 50. See also Qur’an 19:23-26, A. a.-S. M. H. at-Tabataba’i, Al-Mizan, 6:146.
15 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, pp. 45, 54, 56; J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 355-356. Al-Khalesi concludes that this supplication “was on behalf of the worshipper” (Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 15).
17 The bird, painted in blue, “has been identified as the ‘hunter of Africa’” and “was seen over the ruins of Mari in 1951” (Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 11). Others have identified it as a dove, a symbol associated with Ishtar. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 42-43, 166, 209, 246, 473, 654.
18 This second type of tree with its prominent blossoms is identified by al-Khalesi simply as the “Sacred Tree” (Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, pp. 11, 43). Al-Khalesi notes the realism of the date palm but sees the “sacred tree” as “imaginary” in nature (ibid., p. 11). Al-Khalesi reproduces a figure of the façade wall of the Sin temple at Khorsabad where palm trees positioned immediately above identical goddesses with flowing vases flank the entrance to the ante-cella.
20 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 67. Barrelet—citing texts associated with Gudea, a ruler of the city of southern city of Lagash, ca. 2144-2124 BCE—conjectures that the three composite animals symbolize the three major areas of the ritual complex where the investiture took place (M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, p. 24).
21 Scholars agreeing on this general interpretation include Barrelet, Parrot, Margueron, Muller, and al-Khalesi. See, e.g., B. Muller, Aspects, p. 138 note 24; Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, pp. 61-65. While some of our specific conclusions and comparisons are unique to the present study, our overall interpretation follows most closely that of al-Khalesi.
22 Although the akītu festival was very often held on the New Year, particularly for national deities such as Marduk or Assur, it could be “observed at various times of the year, depending on the deity and city… As in ancient Israel, the Mesopotamians maintained two calendars—civil and religious—and as a result, it turns out that first-millennium Babylon actually held two akītus, a primary one during Nisanu 1-12 (the first civil month) and another during Tashritu 1-12 (the seventh civil month, the first religious month). The two months obviously corresponded to the vernal equinox and the autumnal equinox, underscoring the solar and, by implication, agricultural dimensions of the rituals” (K. L. Sparks, Ancient Texts, p. 166).
24 Consistent with Lambert’s earlier findings, Yingling adduces internal evidence relating to the role of Marduk that Enuma Elish in its current form can be dated to no earlier than 1126–1105 BCE (E. O. Yingling, Give Me). However, speaking of the late and varied primary texts that provide ritual prescriptions for akītu rites, Sparks writes: “[O]ur image of the akītu is a composite result of dovetailing disparate sources, but the image is essentially a valid one. Scholars are also quite certain that these late copies of the akītu reflect much older ritual traditions” (K. L. Sparks, Ancient Texts, p. 167). For example, Howard Jacobson cites Sumerian elements in the introductory theogony that hearken back to the great god list An and additional echoes of the Ninurta myth Lugal-e. He also refer to what may be allusions to early Akkadian and Old Babylonian themes. A later Assyrian version of the tale finds the name of Marduk replaced by that of the god Ashur, and in Ugarit we find the motif of the battle between the storm god and the sea in the story of Ba’al and Yam (see H. Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, pp. 167-168). See N. Wyatt, Arms for an extensive discussion and a collection of relevant texts from across the Levant that serve to set the major themes of Enuma Elish in a context stretching back to at least the third millennium BCE.
Thorkild Jacobsen reminds us of how the interpretation of the stories may change even when the stories themselves remain relatively intact (T. Jacobsen, Treasures, pp. 19-20):
It is not only that older elements disappear and are replaced with new; often the old elements are retained and exist side by side with the new; and often too, these older elements, though seemingly unchanged, have in fact come to mean something quite different, have been reinterpreted to fit into a new system of meanings. To illustrate with an example from our own Western cultural tradition, the story of Adam and Eve is retained unchanged since Old Testament times, but the [first chapters] of Genesis [have] been progressively reinterpreted by St. Paul, by St. Augustine, and by Milton (not to speak of modern theologians) so that [they have] come to carry a wealth of theological and anthropological meaning related to the essential nature of man, very different from what the story could possibly have meant in its earlier… cultural setting.
In approaching ancient Mesopotamian materials, it should be kept in mind that the older elements of culture survive, and that they may be reinterpreted over and over; for we find among these materials religious documents, myths, epics, laments, which have been handed down almost unchanged in copy after copy for as much as a thousand or fifteen hundred years, and it is often difficult to say with certainty whether a document originated in the period from which it seems to come, or whether it was in fact from earlier times.
25 Later, Marduk was granted the privilege of having his own temple built, in likeness of the temple of Ea (H. W. Nibley, Teachings of the PGP, 10, pp. 126-127). Of course, such temples were not directly built by divine hands, but rather by the king, on behalf of the gods, as one of his central duties. In return for his service and fidelity, the fruits of the victory won by the gods were transmitted to the new king, both through divine sanction for his kingship—expressed explicitly in the rituals of investiture—and also through the commission given him to build a royal palace, its function paralleling in the secular world that of the temple in the religious domain (I. J. Winter, King, p. 253).
Marduk’s life is, of course, a recapitulation of events from the story of the god Ea. It is quite possible that the version of the creation story told at Mari featured Ishtar rather than Marduk as its principal character—see S. Dalley, Esther’s Revenge, p. 148.
26 E. A. Speiser, Creation Epic, 7:140, p. 72. Philippe Talon observes (P. Talon, Enūma Eliš, p. 266):
Everything Ea… accomplished [was] later accomplished by Marduk, on a grander scale. Apsû and Mummu announce Tiamat and Kingu and they are vanquished in the same way, by magic. Ea has created his dwelling with the body of Apsû as Marduk will create the intelligible world with the body of Tiamat, the exact correspondence of the Apsû being the Ešarra. The deeds of Ea are thus a prefiguration of the great deeds of Marduk, who will receive as his last name the name of his father in Tablet VII.
Continuing his exploration of the means by which it seems possible that “something of the original Mesopotamian concept of the divine left its mark in the Western mind” (ibid., p. 277), Talon writes (ibid., p. 276):
The Chaldaean doctrine does not directly reflect Mesopotamian cosmology in itself, but is rather like an echo. Fragment 7 of the Oracles says: “Because the Father created everything in perfection and gave it to the second Intellect, whom you call the first, all of you, human race.” On which Psellus comments: “After having worked the whole creation, the first Father of the Triad gave it to the Intellect, the one that the human race, ignorant of the preeminence of the Father, calls the first God.” Psellus, being of Christian faith, is here linking the Oracle with his own doctrine and he adds: “Because in the book of Moses, the Father gives the Son the idea of the production of creatures, and the Son becomes the artisan of creation.” This agrees with the role of Marduk in the Babylonian myth if we see him as the Demiurge, the Twice-Beyond who created the universe, distinct from Aššur/ Marduk, the One from which the other gods emanate in the diagram elaborated by S. Parpola. It also agrees well with Enuma Elish, if we understand the Father as Ea and the son, the Creator, as Marduk. It is Ea who advises his son and gives him the plan, the idea, leading to his victory over Tiamat. Later, at the end of the myth, Marduk eventually assumes the name of his Father, Ea, and thus all of his powers.
27 R. J. Clifford, Creation, p. 93. Rennaker laments that “in spite of the fact that it was one of the few texts that we know was read in public each year (especially during the years of the Jewish Babylonian Exile), [Enuma Elish] hasn’t received an incredible amount of scholarly attention since… the early 1900s… When it has been examined, almost all of the scholarly focus is on Marduk, with its temple imagery being treated only secondarily” (J. Rennaker, February 24 2012).
Eaton finds it notable that “the story does not contain any death and resurrection of Marduk, nor a union with his consort” (J. H. Eaton, Kingship, p. 91). However, this does not mean that these ideas were not widespread in Old Babylonian culture. Regarding the notion of life after death in Mesopotamia, Lapinkivi writes:
[T]he widespread scholarly notion that belief in a resurrection did not exist in Mesopotamia but that all dead human souls stayed eternally in the Netherworld is contradicted by the Mesopotamian texts themselves: for instance, the kings Sulgi and Isbi-Erra ascended to heaven after death; Dumuzi died only temporarily and, according to one tradition, ascended to the highest heaven to be its gatekeeper. Ascent to heaven is the central theme in the Etana and Adapa myths. Utnapstim, the sage of the Gilgamesh Epic, was made divine and granted eternal life after the Flood. In the poem Ludlul bel nemeqi (“I will praise the lord of wisdom [i.e., Marduk]”) from the Kassite period (ca. 1595-1155 BC), the righteous sufferer pairs descent to the Netherworld with ascent to heaven, implying that both ideas were famliar to him (II 46-47): “In prosperity they speak of going up to heaven, under adversity they complain of going down to the Netherworld.” Later in the text (IV 33-36), the sufferer claims that only Marduk (the divine king) and Zarpanitu (= Ishtar of Babylon) can restore the dead to life or grant life. In short, the evidence indicates that the Mesopotamians believed humans had souls that were separate from the body because they were able to leave the body in dreams or ecstatic experiences. The soul survived after death and continued its existence in the Netherworld or in heaven.
In this context, it should be kept in mind that, while the human soul, according to the Hebrew Bible—as in Mesopotamia—generally ended up in the Netherworld, a different fate was reserved for select individuals such as Enoch and Elijah… According to Josephus’ (ca. 38-101 CE) Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades:
“The souls of all men are confined [in the Netherworld] until a proper season, which God has determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead, … raising again those very bodies, … giving justly to those who have done well an everlasting fruition, but allotting to the lovers of wicked works eternal punishment [cf. John 5:28-29; Alma 40:11-26].”
On various forms of sacred marriage in Mesopotamia, see B. Pongratz-Leisten, Sacred Marriage; P. Lapinkivi, Sumerian.
29 Moses 3:9; cf. Revelation 22:1-2; Ezekiel 47:1, where the source of these waters is respectively identified as the “throne of God” and the temple. See J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 167-168; J. M. Bradshaw, Moses Temple Themes, pp. 69-89 for more on this motif.
30 T. Stordalen, Echoes, p. 82; cf. B. N. Porter, Date Palms, p. 134.
32 B. L. Visotzky, Conversation. According to Dalley, the “tree was so important in ancient Mesopotamia that it was personified as a god, Nin-Gishzida, ‘trusty tree,’ and had the power of human speech” (S. Dalley, Mesopotamian Gardens, p. 2). Indeed, one of the most popular pieces of Old Babylonian literature was the debate between the tamarisk and the date palm, which king planted in his courtyard after a heavenly council had granted the first kingship to men at the beginning (W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, pp. 151-164). The shade of the tamarisk is the setting for a king’s banquet, and at Mari we are, of course, not surprised to find evidence that “the king and his entourage often ate their meals in the garden” (S. Dalley, Mesopotamian Gardens, p. 2; see depiction of such an event in M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, figure 29).
Such traditions continued into later times. Notes Visotzky (B. L. Visotzky, Conversation, p. 212; cf. H. W. Nibley, Message (2005), p. 288):
For a period of close to five hundred years, stories from Semitic religious communities preserved (in Palestinian Aramaic, koine Greek, and rabbinic Hebrew) snatches of the conversation of palm trees. The palms speak in dreams to one another and in broad daylight to those who would transgress against them. What seems to bind the dialogues together is that in every case, the ultimate hearer is a towering religious figure.
An example of the theme of warning is illustrated in the Genesis Apocryphon, a Jewish text from Qumran where we find Abram dreaming of a cedar and a date palm, representing himself and his wife Sarai. It is only through the pleadings of the palm tree that the cedar is spared from the axes of the woodcutters (F. G. Martinez, Genesis Apocryphon, 19:14-17, p. 232). A similar theme is found in the later biography of Mani, where Elchasai the Baptist climbs a date palm and is apparently warned that he should not cut it down for wood (R. Cameron et al., CMC, pp. 11, 13.). The theme persists centuries later in the Persian Shahnama epic (A. Ferdowsi, Shahnama (1905-1925), pp. 517-519), where a talking tree rebukes Alexander the Great “for his lust of conquest and prophesies his death in a distant land” (E. Edson et al., Cosmos, p. 55, caption to Figure 29).
On the other hand, the function of the trees as a source of wisdom is shown in the Pistis Sophia, which reports that God spoke “mysteries” to Enoch “out of the Tree of Gnosis [Knowledge] and out of the Tree of Life in the paradise of Adam” (C. Schmidt, Pistis, 2:99, p. 495; G. R. S. Mead, Pistis, 2:246, p. 205).
33 See, e.g., E. A. S. Butterworth, Tree, p. 74, see also pp. 75, 78. Butterworth discusses this idea in the context of Genesis 3:6-7, 21:19; Numbers 24:3-4; 1 Samuel 14:25-29; and 2 Kings 6:17-20.
34 See the conclusions of Albenda, as cited in M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, pp. 172-173.
35 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 63, citing a study by Moortgat.
36 Durand, cited in N. Marinatos, Minoan Harem, p. 43. Marinatos sees it as no coincidence that the women’s apartments at Mari were not far from the Throne Room suite, where the sacrificial banquet would have taken place (ibid., p. 44).
37 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, pp. 11, 43; cf. Barrelet’s “arbres fictifs” (M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, pp. 12, 27; cf. Parrot “arbre stylisé” (A. Parrot, Palais, Peintures murales, p. 59). Giovino refutes arguments by scholars who frequently conflate this second type of sacred tree with the date palm. Among other evidence, she includes several examples where, as in the Mari Panel, both kinds of trees appear together (see, e.g., M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, pp. 113-128 and figures 58-60).
38 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 18; cf. M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, pp. 26-27; M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, pp. 195-196. See also T. D. Alexander, From Eden, p. 22 n. 20.
39 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 18; cf. M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, pp. 26-27; M. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, pp. 195-196.
41 As evidence for one of the gateposts, al-Khalesi cites a drawing in a study by Parrot that includes a tiny rectangular chink (approximately 12 cm. wide and 25 cm. long) in the pavement at a distance of 4.80 m. from the northern wall of the room (the wall between Rooms 64 and 65). A gatepost at a similar distance from the opposite wall would have defined an opening of about 2 m. that was centered in the room. Al-Khalesi also observes that pieces of wooden beams lying on the floor that Parrot identified as part of the roofing beams of the room could have also been part of the partition structure (Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 57).
45 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 67. Barrelet—citing texts associated with Gudea, a ruler of the city of southern city of Lagash, ca. 2144-2124 BCE—conjectures that the three composite animals symbolize the three major areas of the ritual complex where the investiture took place (M.-T. Barrelet, Peinture, p. 24).
46 See Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, pp. 58-60 for arguments in favor of the identification of this goddess with Ishtar. Note, among other conventions, the lion under her foot. By way of contrast, the Egyptian Book of the Dead shows that “the cat who split the ished-tree and released the god also beheads the god’s mortal enemy, the Apophis serpent, beneath the same ished-tree,” its paw resting heavily on the head of the serpent in accompanying illustrations (H. W. Nibley, Message (2005), pp. 311-312). For related motifs in Jewish and Christian sources, see J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 266-267.
48 See S. D. Ricks, Oaths, pp. 49-50; P. Y. Hoskisson, Nīšum Oath.
49 Y. M. al-Khalesi, Palms, p. 58. Wyatt discussses these items as divine arms that relate the king’s military action to the mythic combat of the gods (N. Wyatt, Arms, p. 159): “The actual handing over of the weapons (taken by the king from the hands of the divine image?) indicates a process of direct transmission by touch, comparable to rites of laying of hands, as in investitures, and enthronement rites in which kings sit on the divine throne” (ibid., p. 160 n. 28). Based on fragmentary textual evidence, Wyatt conjectures three elements in the ritual (ibid., pp. 159-160):
Firstly, the king is escorted by the god to the throne of his father, where he presumably takes his seat. This suggests that he approaches the throne accompanied by the image of the god, perhaps holding his hand;
Secondly, he is given the “divine weapons,” which are identified as those used by the god in the mythical Chaoskampf [i.e., primeval battle between the god and the forces of chaos]. Something of their power and efficacy is evidently to be transmitted to the king;
Thirdly, he is anointed, in the first extra-biblical allusion to the anointing of a king. This most distinctive of Israelite and Judahite rites is now given a pedigree going back a millennium. This is the thus the formal inauguration of [the king’s] reign…
Differing from Wyatt in the interpretation of the “rod and ring,” Slanski concludes, from both linguistic and archaeological evidence, that the “ring” in the hand of Ishtar could well be an ancient chalk line (K. E. Slanski, Rod and Ring, pp. 47-48), symbolizing the just rulership of the king. As emblems that symbolically conjoin the acts of measurement and temple foundation-laying with the processes of cosmic creation, the Mesopotamian rod and ring can be profitably compared to temple surveying instruments in the biblical book of Ezekiel (see, e.g., D. I. Block, Ezekiel 25-48, pp. 512, 515) as well as to the analogous figures of the square and circle (or compass) (H. W. Nibley, Circle).
Note that the battle axe that hangs down from Ishtar’s left hand in the mural would have been a more fitting symbol of war. Since there is no explicit link between the Mari Investiture Panel and the text on which Wyatt bases his interpretation, Ronan J. Head and I have tentatively concluded that, just as the painting seems to depict an established rite involving the “rod and ring” that authorized the king to build a palace and establish his just rule, so there may have been an analogous ceremony to which Wyatt’s text alludes, where the god would stretch out his battle-axe to the king in preparation for war. A biblical parallel to the dichotomy between building and waging war can be found in the story of King David, who was forbidden by God from constructing a temple because of his career as a warrior. For this reason, Solomon his son, a “man of rest,” was eventually given the commission to build the earthly House of God (1 Chronicles 22:8-9).
51 Summarizing the LDS attitude toward ancient and modern revelation of religious truths, Truman G. Madsen wrote (E. Benz, Imago Dei (1978), pp. xvi, xvii):
To say that the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness is restored is to say that something has been lost and regained — but it is not to say that everything has. The Mormon believes that after every outpouring of divine light there is a record of degeneration and loss, the signs of which he thinks he can see in every generation. But Mormons have resisted from the outset the sectarian impulse: the isolation of a text or principle and the insistence that they alone possess and practice it. Exultant at a new revelatory downpour, the Mormon sees the implication: unless the same truths, authorities, and powers can be found in prior times and places; unless there have been genuine prophets, apostles and holy men who were, for all their individual traits, in touch with divine outpourings; unless there have been saints of former as well as of latter days — unless these things are so, Mormonism is without foundation. In other words, Mormonism has no claim to be a viable religion in the present unless it has been a viable religion in the past. And this is not just a halfhearted concession that there has been sort of, or part of, or a shadow of the fulness of the Gospel. It is to say that some, at least, among the ancients had it all. It is to match the thesis that from the early (and supposedly crude) beginnings things have become better; just as often they have, instead, become worse. Spiritual anabolism and catabolism have been at work in the religious life from the beginning. …
If the outcome of hard archaeological, historical, and comparative discoveries in the past century is an embarrassment to exclusivistic readings of religion, that, to the Mormon, is a kind of confirmation and vindication. His faith assures him not only that Jesus anticipated his great predecessors (who were really successors) but that hardly a teaching or a practice is utterly distinct or peculiar or original in his earthly ministry. Jesus was not a plagiarist, unless that is the proper name for one who repeats himself. He was the original author. The gospel of Jesus Christ came with Christ in the meridian of time only because the gospel of Jesus Christ came from Christ in prior dispensations. He did not teach merely a new twist on a syncretic- Mediterranean tradition. His earthly ministry enacted what had been planned and anticipated “from before the foundations of the world,” (e.g., John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20; Alma 22:13; D&C 130:20; Moses 5:57; Abraham 1:3) and from Adam down.
