GENESIS 1-3 AND REVELATION 21-22

One of the standard test questions in a history or literature class begins with the words “Compare and Contrast.” And two pieces of holy history are prime candidates for that exercise: the beginning and conclusion of the whole Bible. The most extreme ends of the scale regarding the relationship between Eden and the New Jerusalem are best illustrated by considering the writings of scholars such as Michael S. Heiser (The Unseen Realm) and Jacques Ellul (The Meaning of the City and Apocalypse). The former author emphasizes the similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem while the latter definitely contrasts the two. Any impartial reader would have to agree that there are elements of both going on in the Bible.

Similarities

The close fellowship between man and God in both Eden and the New Jerusalem is probably the most significant parallel between life in the two realms. But in order to stress that similarity, Heiser resorts to making unwarranted parallels with pagan concepts resulting in significant additions to what is actually stated in Genesis.

Heiser spends one whole chapter (ch. 6) not so much proving that Eden was the abode of God as simply asserting that “fact” and then stating it over and over again throughout his book. The only proof he can offer for this view is that the Ugaritic god El and the other main pagan deity in the Middle East, Baal, were said to dwell in mountains or lush gardens. Therefore, his reasoning is that the Israelites must have borrowed that concept from their neighbors. And on that slender, and almost heretical, foundation, Heiser constructs his house of cards.

    “An ancient Israelite would have thought of Eden as the dwelling of God and the place from which God and his council direct the affairs of humanity. The imagery is completely consistent with how Israel's neighbors thought about their gods.”

    “Eden was the divine abode and, therefore, the place where Yahweh held council meetings.”

    “Eden was God's home on earth. It was his residence. And where the King lives, his council meets.”

    “Eden was both the divine abode and the nerve center for God's plan for earth.”

    “Eve...was in Eden, the realm of Yahweh with his elohim council.”

    “In Genesis, Eden was Yahweh's home and meeting place of his divine council.”

    “Earlier we discovered that Eden was the dwelling place and headquarters of the divine council.”

    “..the Edenic creation where God first dwelt on earth.”

Well, Eden is certainly located in a garden, but nowhere in Genesis does it say that it was located on a mountain. To prove that point, Heiser must resort to the poetic taunt song in Ezekiel 28 and read it in a strictly literal manner while denying at the same time that the words are describing the ruler of Tyre, but Satan instead. And since Satan was in Eden, then all of the poetic descriptions in those prophetic writings must apply to the Garden of Eden.

I realize that the above may be a little confusing to read, but Heiser's book is even worse in that respect. The bottom line is that Genesis 1-3 at best notes that God “walked” in the garden on occasion, not that He dwelt there by any means. And if you are wondering why Heiser makes such a big deal over his point, it is there to set the stage for his conclusion that the New Jerusalem is a return to Eden. He says that “it's no coincidence that the Bible ends with the vision of a new Edenic Earth...All that was originally intended in God's vision of a global Eden has come to pass.” But to make that identification, he must have to ignore the large differences between the two. They are just as important as the fact that the first Adam was made to rule over Eden while the Second Adam, Christ, will rule eternally over the Second Creation together with the Father.

In another chapter, Heiser goes to great pains to connect the mention of gold and precious stones in Genesis 2:12 with the decorations in the Solomonic Temple. To do so, he must ignore the fact that these treasures in Genesis are not located in Eden at all, but in some of the neighboring lands. And even if he could establish some sort of identification with the two, that would merely show one more difference between Eden and the New Jerusalem since the latter contains no temple at all (Revelation 21:22).

As you can get a hint from some of the quotations above, in Heiser's writings he is somewhat fixated on God's “divine council” and tends to drag in his particular concept of that group whatever the subject at hand happens to be. This is a definite limitation to the worth of his books to the general reader.

Differences

One strong difference between the two situations is that the tempter is present in the garden while Revelation 20:10 makes it clear that the deceiving devil and other supernatural evil forces will have been consigned to the lake of fire before the New Jerusalem arrives. Similarly, this will be the fate of the sinners and unfaithful whose name is not found in the book of life (Revelation 20:14-15; 21:8,27; 22:3,15). So whereas Adam and Eve are removed from the garden after they demonstrated their disobedience, the disobedient will not even be allowed to enter the New Jerusalem in the first place because of their sin.

The physical creations are different from one another. “Night” was one of the first things created by God (Gen. 1:5), but in the New Creation there will be no night (Revelation 21:25). Similarly, the sun that ruled the day (Genesis 1:16) is no longer needed in the New Jerusalem since the only lights there will be the light of God and the Lamb.

The image of the Tree of Life appears in both the opening and closing passages of the Bible. However, in Eden it could easily be taken out of mankind's reach (Genesis 3:22-24) whereas it is available to all in the New Creation. Similarly, a guard was stationed at the entrance of Eden (Genesis 3:24) to prevent anyone from coming in. But in stark contrast, we learn in Revelation 21:25 that the gates of the New Jerusalem will be open for anyone to enter.

The river issuing from the throne of God appears to be similar to the river flowing out of Eden. However, there is one difference. In Eden, the river branched out into four rivers. As Ellul points out, the number four in the Bible is always symbolic of the creation. Since that old creation is gone, the river in the New Jerusalem has no such branchings.

The greatest difference in the two locations is in regard to their physical make-up. And here Jacques Ellul has much to say, so I will content myself with quoting some of his thoughts regarding Revelation 21-22.

    “Even a rapid reading of this text permits us to say that in this new creation absolutely nothing recalls the traditional images of Paradise or of Green Pastures.”

    “The first evidence is that the new creation, which is absolutely new [see Rev. 21:5], comes only through judgment and destruction first, a radical crisis is necessary, annihilation that falls upon all: nature, humanity, history, and the powers.”

    “What does the fact that it is a city essentially mean? We are in the presence of a series of meanings. The first is that we observe a total contrast between the first creation and the second. In the first, God had created a garden for man. Man lives in 'nature.' In the second, he is installed in a city. Thus we do not observe a return to the origin. It is not the preservation of God's primitive plan.”

    “Very simply...God does not annul history and the work of man but, on the contrary, assumes it. The city is the great work of man...It is well described as the sum of his culture and his inventions; it is his creation....Well, God takes up the whole history of men and synthesizes it in the absolute city... Consequently, the history of humanity is not in vain, annulled by a stroke of the pen, as if nothing of our efforts, our suffering, our hopes, had ever existed: on the contrary, all is gathered up.”

    “God does not reject this world of revolt and death, he does not annihilate it in the abyss of fire. Rather, he adopts it. That is, he takes charge of it. And the immense vanity that man put into it, God transforms into a city with gates of pearl. Thus, and only thus, does our work take on meaning, both significance and direction.”

Since I attached a general warning at the end of my comments on Heiser, here is one final caveat against taking all that Ellul has to say without reservation: his belief in the universal salvation of all mankind limits the usefulness of some of the other statements that he makes in his books despite the great insights he provides elsewhere.