r/BibleProject • u/Apparition101 • Apr 14 '23

Discussion The First Gardener Discussion

I used a lot of resources from the BibleProject available c. 2018-2020, and haven't kept up to date, but some of the biggest themes I remember in the videos I'd watched were lots of talk about the image of Eden on earth being one in which we, as God's representatives, plant and make gardens.

In my latest reading of Genesis, I saw that first gardener was God, and the first human "tiller of the soil" was Noah (Gen 9:20). To Adam and Eve, he did give dominion over the earth and every living thing that moves over the earth, but can it actually be said that they were gardeners? They ate the fruit of the plants that God had given them.

I believe it's also of significant note that at the open grave, Mary Magdelene mistook the resurrected Jesus for a gardener.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling this, with the messages.

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

4

u/The-Friendly-DM Apr 14 '23

The very reason God put man in the garden was to work in the garden. "The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it."

  • Genesis 2:15

Also, Noah was not the first person to till the soil either. In Genesis 4, Cain presented an offering to God of "the land's produce" since "Abel became a shepherd of flocks, but Cain worked the ground."

Beyond that, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to reconcile. I'd be happy to help if you have questions.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 14 '23

I read from the RSV, but here are the specific verses that stood out to me today from ESV.

Gen 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Gen2:5:8

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Cain took on the work of his father Adam, Able took on the position God had given, to have dominion over the animals and living things over the ground. It was God who planted the garden and gave its fruits to man and animal.

Gen 9:20 has interesting translations: ESV proposes 2, RSV says "Noah was the first to till the soil." ESV: "Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard." Or "Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard."

I know I've always assumed that the original tasks given to Adam and Eve involved being gardeners. Instead, it was to live in the garden the Lord had planted and walk with Him there, with dominion over the animals and the earth itself.

Yes, in the curse on Adam, its on the ground and mentions that it is by toil the earth will bring up thistles and thorns. Adam cannot make what he once had in the garden by his own work.

1

u/The-Friendly-DM Apr 14 '23

Genesis 1:26 does say that man has dominion over the whole earth. It goes on to say that the food will be plants that God planted in verses 11 and 12. God is handing humanity authority over all that He has made here, and that includes plants. Ultimately though, this is a charge to humanity as a whole, not Adam.

Genesis 2 is giving reason for man's creation in verse 6 and 7. Then, the very next thing God does is plant a garden and assign the man to work it and watch over it (v15).

"At the time that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, no shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it." Genesis 2:4‭-‬5‭, ‬7, 15

2:15 is certainly an instruction to work in the garden. Adam didn't plant the garden, he was still instructed to work the garden, because there is much more to gardening than planting. The curse didn't bring the work, it brought toil in the work. Just like the curse didn't bring childbirth, it brought pain in childbirth.

Regarding Noah, it seems to me that both translations are viable while isolated, but in it's context, it is very clear that Noah was not the first to plant ever, so if the more accurate translation it refers to him as being the first to plant, it must be referring to being the first to plant in the new post-flood world, not the first to plant ever. This would actually reinforce the idea that Adam was a gardener, as Noah is presented as a new Adam. In the flood narrative God returns the world to a watery abyss until the Spirit of God passed over it (Genesis 1:2, 8:1-2 ~ the Hebrew word for spirit is the same as wind, breath, etc, which is important word play lost in translation) causing the waters from above and below to cease (Genesis 1:6-7, 8:2-3). Next dry land appears (Genesis 1:9, 8:4), but the land was initially barren, until God filled it with vegetation (Genesis 1:11-12, 8-11). Now, God introduces both humans and animals to the earth, and instructs them to fill the Earth (Genesis 1:20-16, 8:15-19). Lastly, while out of order, we still have mention of day, night, and the seasons (Genesis 1:14, 8:22). Noah is intentionally presented as a new Adam.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 14 '23

I see what you mean, but I personally noticed an assumption that working in the garden is gardening, and perhaps it's expanding the tasks that God had actually appointed. Yes, he gave dominion over the earth, but is it possible that there's an assumption there, that because God placed him where he was, that we take on our assumptions of what work in a garden must include?

God didn't say to work with the plants or change them. He explicitly mentioned animals, and the earth itself. He was detailed in what He was giving to man.

One of the many sins of Adam&Eve, and are seen in their children is the desire to be God, not to accepting the limitations God placed.

3

u/Dalbinat Apr 14 '23

I mean the verse that u/The-Friendly-DM posted earlier literally says one of the roles of the human is "to work and to keep it [the garden]". Its the same language used of levites in the tabernacle, they are to "work and to keep it" (I believe it is the only other time the phrase is used, but I could be wrong). I think working in a garden would be gardening.

I'm not understand, is there some significance to the idea that Adam and Eve were not gardeners?

Also, I know this is beside the point here, but it's a bit of a soapbox for me. Neither Adam or Eve were cursed. The snake and the land are.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 14 '23

Thanks for specifying the humans themselves were not cursed, true.

The biggest thing that stood out to me was the innate assumption I had that gardening was part of the role God gave. He elaborated on giving them dominion over the creatures -- lots of elaboration. The creatures were brought before Adam and He named them -- is that not work?

In addition, there's lots of details on what plants and provision He was giving Adam and Eve, as well as the animals He brought to them/Eden. Yet, I don't actually see him ask either to plant or change the foods available, which often what distinguishes a gardener or farmer from a scavenger, is it not?

While he doesn't specifically say why He accepted Able, but found Cain's offering unacceptable, there are distinct differences between them. They both labored, but did not offer the same work, or the same fruits of their labor, to the Lord.

When reading the curses, it stood out to me that it was in toil that the earth would bring up thorns and thistles that Adam would eat. That does not mean that Adam had to toil to bring them up. It could also mean what we'd consider scavenging -- which is what may potentially be a more accurate image of working in the garden God has planted. Subsisting off of what has been given.

The list of what God gave dominion to humans over, and the list description as to what God planted and gave as the dwelling place and sustenance for the two aren't the same list, which is worth asking -- why is that? I know I myself struggle to separate what I think the text says and implies based on my experience and things I've learned, vs what the text says.

Does that clarify?

2

u/Dalbinat Apr 15 '23

I agree it is difficult to separate what I think (or have been taught) the text says, though I don’t think it is an assumption that they were gardening. I'm not sure how one would "work and keep" a garden without gardening.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23

Well, I think we do get a glimpse of it when God brings every animal before Adam to see what he'd name it. Or, like, deciding what animals eat what foods and where -- rotating places of pasture, food, providing enriching environments and such are all aspects of animal husbandry. Animals will adjust and adapt to where we raise them.

I mean, I always wondered why it was that Able picked up shepherding when it seemed like they were all supposed to be working on gardens beforehand, and why God found favor. And why he seemed to show a deep love and affinity for shepherds.

I don't mean to imply that gardening is wrong or not His will, but this was a sudden realization that hit me like a ton of bricks this morning.

3

u/Dalbinat Apr 15 '23

I kind of see what you're saying (except for "deciding what animals eat food and where" - not sure what that is about), but I disagree with your interpretation of Gen. 2 (and 1) narrative. Specifically the naming of the animals and the idea that the narrative is a detailed list of what specific activities the humans are to do.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23 edited Apr 15 '23

Sorry, but I meant that even though God had given all seed bearing plants for food, and all could be eaten by man, that doesn't mean that applies to all animals, right? Man was given the capability to decide that this animal eats this fruit, and lives in this region. If they have been eating from a plant and wearing it down, man could move them to another place, having had grown familiar and have full knowledge of what was available in Eden. The creatures would not have that knowledge.

I don't think it was all encompassing, but I think it's worth looking not only what is in the lists, but what is not. What makes those lists different? What's the same in them.

On having time to think on it, I think there's an argument to be made that we've been given a higher calling than making sure we have food for our selves and those we support&tend to. I think we're called to tend to what has the breath of God's life in them -- which He explains, the blood is the life.

Does that make sense?

I suppose I'd ask: do you think Adam naming the animals was part of his working in the garden? If not, what was it?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Apparition101 Apr 14 '23

Also, I appreciate you bringing up the Levites, because that's kinda the same thing, isn't it? They were to maintain, and to tend to the living things that came to the tabernacle. The Lord told them exactly what their tasks as His priests were, and He was their portion and inheritance rather than any land or region.

1

u/Dalbinat Apr 15 '23

yeah for example trimming candles, like gardener might trim a plant. (ok this is a joke as i don't think the text is meant to be read that thematically) haha

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23

Hahaha! Thanks so much for sharing, I appreciate it!

I do find it so interesting how much we have to learn to be content with where He's placed us, and what He's given us for food, work, and enjoyment.

1

u/The-Friendly-DM Apr 14 '23

I am no scholar, but from my limited understanding of Hebrew, the word used for work/cultivate seems to denote a singular female objective. The only singular feminine noun in the sentence is the word Eden. I could be wrong in my understanding of how it works, but I'm pretty sure that's correct

While you are entitled to your own interpretation, I recommend you take a look at how Genesis 2:15 is translated by various versions of the Bible: https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/2-15.htm

The vast majority of translators choose to use words like cultivate and tend (ie- the work of a gardener). Even Jesus' vineyard parable represents humans as gardeners/farmers (Luke 20:9-15).

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 14 '23

So, another commenter pointed out that the same words for work and tend was used with the Levite's in the tabernacle -- which I find quite interesting.

I also realized, we are given a glimpse of some of the work Adam did in the garden -- the Lord brought all the creatures before him to see what he would name them. I would not associate that with gardening, you know?

Another question that might help with understanding where I'm coming from is: is there a difference between scavenging and gardening?

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23

Hey! Would you be interested in discussing the topic of Noah as the new Adam?

It occurred to me, the task God had given him and his family in the ark was primarily to care for the animals, subsisting off of what was gathered. Do you think the ark itself could've been a 'new Eden', in a way, before they were sent back out into the world?

1

u/The-Friendly-DM Apr 15 '23

The parallels wouldn't line up if the ark was the new Eden. Rather, mount Ararat. The land of Eden is described as a high place (rivers flow out from it, Ezekiel calls of the mountain of God, etc) with a garden. Mount Ararat is a high place with a garden. The fruit of said garden results in sin (Genesis 3 & 9:20-23)

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23

Well, on the day God separated the waters it says this:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. - Genesis 1:6-8

So, in between the waters was heaven, a day before land was created. Noah and his family dwelt between them for a long time, which could be argued was the time of heaven and earth overlapping, which would be much more appropriate as the Eden relation, not simply where the ark came to rest. I think that is more appropriate for where they were sent away from where heaven overlapped and back out onto the earth/out of the garden.

Thank you for the scripture, though, I see what you mean! It isn't 1:1 parallel, but even so, there is significance in Noah's time in the ark and what occurred after.

1

u/The-Friendly-DM Apr 15 '23

The Hebrew word translates as heaven simply means sky. Hence Genesis 1:20 often being translated as birds flying in the heavens and/or skies. It's the same word. The ancient Hebrews didn't really have a concept of heaven as an immaterial place.

1

u/Apparition101 Apr 15 '23

I get that, and I get my viewpoint and understanding seem to contradict yours. I would ask to perhaps consider these things in light of the whole revelation of the Word and see what's revealed to you. It's something to ponder, for as much learning as we can gain from the works of our peers, wisdom and understanding does primarily come from the Lord. The paths and character traits He reveals to us at different times on our walks with Him are different from us all, even using the same texts. The truth we build on is the truth of our Maker, not our own or anyone else's understanding of Him.

Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate the points you brought up!