Theological Structure of Paradise

 
The Location of Paradise

 

Part Four:

Theological Structure of Paradise

 

 

 

 

“On the summit of Mount Paradise stood the Tree of Life, representing the divine presence, or the Holy of Holies, an area Adam and Eve were not allowed to enter ….

The Tree of Knowledge marked the demarcation line (analogous to the veil in the sanctuary …) to the next level, the slopes of the mountain.

The lower slopes, finally, indicate the realm where the animals lived.

Along the foothills is the fence, produced by the cherub with the revolving sword …”.

 

 

 

 

Matthias Henze writes of the Theological Structure of Paradise according to the interpretation of it by St. Ephrem Syrus, a Christian theologian, poet, hymnist, and doctor of the church (conventionally dated to c. 306 -373 AD):

 

Matthias Henze

THE MADNESS OF KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR

The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History

of Interpretation of Daniel 4

Brill, 1999

....

2. In the beginning God created the creation,

the fountainhead of delights;

the house which he constructed

provisions those who live therein,

for upon His gift

innumerable created beings depend;

from a single table

does He provide

every day for each creature

all things in due measure (Ps. 145:15-16).

Grant that we may acknowledge

Your grace, O Good One.

 

RESPONSE: Through Your grace make me worthy

of that Garden of happiness.

3. A garden full of glory,

a chaste bridal chamber,

did he give to that king

fashioned from the dust,

sanctifying and separating him

from the abode of wild animals;

for glorious was Adam

in all things –

in where he lived and what he ate,

in his radiance and dominion.

Blessed is He who elevated him above all

so that he might give thanks to the Lord of all ….

 

In these two stanzas Ephrem articulates his view of Paradise and its (theological) geography.

He conceives of Paradise as a circular mountain which circumscribes the entire world. When Cain says to Abel in the Peshitta, “Let us go the valley …” (Gen 4:8, Syriac pqatā’, the Hebrew is lacking at this point; the LXX reads  εìς τò πεδíον, i.e., ‘to the field’), this implied for Ephrem that their home was on a mountain. ….

The Paradise mountain is then divided further into three concentric circles, designating three levels of sacred space. A careful reading of the Genesis narrative provides the key to understanding the distinctive qualities of these three degrees of holiness. In Gen 3:3 Eve reports to the serpent that God had commanded them not to touch the tree (Hebrew lō(̒) tigg’û bô). Hebrew nāga‘ is ambiguous and can mean either ‘to touch’, or ‘to draw near’. The ambiguity is retained in the Peshitta (Syriac lā(’) tetqarrbûn), yet the verb used in Syriac (qreb in the Ethpa.) readily lends itself to Ephrem’s interpretation, which reads the command to mean ‘to approach’, rather than ‘to touch’. The Syriac thus implies that the divine prohibition was rather strict in nature and ruled out not only the touching of, but even the drawing near to, the tree.

In his Commentary on Genesis, Ephrem offers the same interpretation.

The tempter then turned his mind to the commandment of Him who had set down the commandment, that [Adam and Eve] were not only commanded not to eat from one single tree, but they were not even to draw near to it. The serpent then realized that God had forewarned them abut even looking at it lest they become entrapped by its beauty. […]

The serpent remained silent, for it perceived immediately that Eve was about to succumb. It was not so much the serpent’s counsel that entered her ear and provoked her to eat from the tree at it was her gaze, which she directed toward the tree, that lured her to pluck and eat of its fruit…..

The fact that Adam and Eve were forbidden even to draw near to the tree called for an explanation.

In his commentary, Ephrem suggest that Eve had to be guarded from gazing at the tree simply because the tree’s beauty would have enticed her immediately into longing for the fruit – which is, after all, what happened after the serpent seduced her. In his Hymns on Paradise, however, Ephrem provides a different explanation. The closest analogue for the divine prohibition not to draw near in the Hebrew Bible is found in passages that deal with notion of sacred space, such as the theophany at Mount Sinai, or the Divine Presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. In either case we find a tripartite structure, i.e., three concentric circles which serve as demarcations of increasing degrees of holiness organized around the divine presence in the center. God’s command to Eve not to draw near to the tree therefore had to imply that the geography of Paradise followed the same pattern. On the summit of Mount Paradise stood the Tree of Life, representing the divine presence, or the Holy of Holies, an area Adam and Eve were not allowed to enter (cf. Hymns on Paradise III.3). The Tree of Knowledge  marked the demarcation line (analogous to the veil in the sanctuary; cf. III.13.17) to the next level, the slopes of the mountain. The lower slopes, finally, indicate the realm where the animals lived.

Along the foothills is the fence, produced by the cherub with the revolving sword (IV.1).

Returning to stanza three in hymn XIII, the “garden full of glory, a chaste bridal chamber” is a common epithet for Mount Paradise in Ephrem’s hymns. Adam, here referred to as king, was fashioned from dust, still within the lower slopes of the mountain, an area he shared with the beasts. He names the animals, as Ephrem reports in the previous hymn, … and is venerated by them. Adam then discovers his need for a mate, and God creates Eve. It is at this point that Adam and Eve are separated geographically from the animals and enter the middle slopes of the garden. In the words of our hymn (XIII.3), God was “sanctifying and separating him from the abode of wild animals; for glorious was Adam in all things – in where he lived and what he ate, in his radiance and dominion”.

Ephrem is quite specific about the distinctive qualities of Adam’s and Eve’s new environ: no animals dwell here. The first human beings are thus blessed with a unique domicile, food, radiance, and dominion. These last lines, of course, anticipate the comparison with Nebuchadnezzar, who claimed many of the same privileges.

 

4. The king of Babylon resembled

Adam king of the universe:

both rose up against the one Lord

and were brought low;

He made them outlaws,

casting them afar.

Who can fail to weep,

seeing that these free-born kings

preferred slavery

and servitude.

Blessed is He who releases us

so that His image might no longer be in bondage.

 

At this point, Ephrem introduces the key hermeneutic maneuver of the entire hymn, the exegetical coordination of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar. The obvious analogies between the two kings are quickly outlined. Like Adam, Nebuchadnezzar indulged in royal splendor. Yet, both heroes proved unable to remain content with their appointed status. Becoming increasingly greedy, they grew arrogant before God. Even their swift punishments were analogous in that both were expelled into an exile among the beasts.

 

5. David wept for Adam,

at how he fell

from that royal abode

to the abode of wild animals (Ps 49:13).

Because he went astray through a beast

he became like the beasts:

He ate, together with them

as a result of the curse,

grass and roots,

and he died, becoming their peer.

Blessed is He who set him apart

from the wild animals again.

 

The discussion returns to Adam, and a new text is introduced, Ps 49:13, “Man (Hebrew ’ādām) does not abide in (Hebrew yālîn) honor; he is like the beasts that perish.” Like the rabbis, Ephrem saw in the third part of the biblical canon a storehouse of interpretive tools which, once juxtaposed with a verse from the Torah, shed light on the cryptic line under consideration. Jewish exegetes read the verse from Psalm 49 as an explanation about how long Adam resided in Paradise: Adam was expelled from his elevated status in less than a day’s time. ….

Ephrem chooses a different interpretation. In the Peshitta, the first half of verse 13 reads, “Man (Syriac bārnā šā’) did not take notice (Syriac ’etbayyan) … of his honor”, which Ephrem understands to imply that Adam, here understood as the individual, rather than as the collective as the Syriac would suggest, took no cognizance of his elevated status he enjoyed at the moment when God led him (and Eve) away from the animals to the next higher level on Mount Paradise. Adam was careless and forfeit his privileged status.

The stanza provides us with the first glimpse into the ultimate message Ephrem seeks to communicate through his comparison of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar, and to which he will return at greater length in a short moment. Like Adam, we as well are unaware of our present status. Ephrem’s goal thus is to enable us to see what we have lost, since only by discerning this loss can we appreciate what we are lacking and develop a desire to be restored. ….