Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 11:4 (Fall 1968)
Article: The Localization Of The Garden Of Eden
Author: Arthur H. Lewis

BETS 11:4 (Fall 1968) p. 169

The Localization Of The Garden Of Eden

Arthur H. Lewis*

[* Professor of Old Testament, Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota.]

The site of the Garden of Eden has always been a tantalizing problem for interpreters of the early chapters of Genesis. Well-known localities are interspersed in the text with obscure or ambiguous place-names, thwarting any serious attempt to mark the boundaries of the ancient paradise. No locality has yet been proposed that fits snugly into all of the geographical data.

The quest is of minor significance, of course, for exegetes that take the language of Genesis, chapters two and three, conceptually, or as religious fantasy, without any historical basis whatsoever. John McKenzie refers to Eden as a “Never-never land, whose geography is altogether unreal.” 1 More recently the Catholic scholar, H. Renckens, has concluded:

The world of paradise, as it is described in Genesis, if it is to be taken literally and then analyzed in the light of modern secular and scientific knowledge, poses an insoluble problem. And it is a false problem, for this world neither has ever existed, nor could have existed. 2

Both of these authors, however, would readily agree that the ancients believed in the existence of an objective and historical Garden of God. Certainly the Hebrews understood the language of the Torah about Eden to be literal.

A different form of attack on the concept of a localized paradise comes from evangelicals who teach that Edenic perfections were universal in nature prior to Adam’s sin. This results in an ipso facto, denial of major elements of the text and also blurs the distinctive image of the garden.

H. C. Leopold, for example, in his Exposition on Genesis asserts that “A paradise-like state prevailed at creation over all the earth.” 3 The coauthors of The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris, assure their readers that “Christians have been entirely justified in thinking of the whole earth before the Fall in terms of Edenic conditions.” 4 In reply to a suggestion by Bernard Ramm that the environment outside the garden

BETS 11:4 (Fall 1968) p. 170

was natural from the beginning, as we see the cosmos today, Whitcomb and Morris declare: “The principle objection to this approach is that it lacks a single shred of Scriptural support in its favor, and runs counter to an immense avalanche of revelation.” You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe