Tabernacle Orientation as a Return to Eden

Matthew V. Moss

EXT 211: Pentateuch II

Dr. Walter A. Maier III

October 31, 2011

[Revised March 5, 2012]

I. TRANSLATION

Exodus 27:12And the breadth of the court to the west side, there shall be curtains for fifty cubits,

with ten pillars and ten bases. 13And the breadth of the court to the east side, to the sunrise, it

shall be fifty cubits. 14And there shall be fifteen cubits of curtains for the one shoulder, with three

pillars and three bases. 15And on the other shoulder there shall be fifteen cubits of curtains, with

three pillars and three bases. 16And for the gate of the court there shall be a screen twenty cubits

long, of violet, purple, and scarlet yarn, and finely twisted linen, embroidered by weavers. There

shall be four pillars and four bases.

II. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT

Beginning in Exodus chapter 25, the Lord instructs Moses on the specifics of the

Tabernacle, the sanctuary where YHWH will dwell in the midst of His people (Ex 25.8).

YHWH’s directions are clear and complete covering everything from the dimensions to the

materials, from the colors to the furnishings. These instructions continue through chapter 31 in

exhaustive detail. Though the reader may be tempted to gloss over these chapters and consult an

artist’s rendition, these words are nonetheless the Word of the Lord and are salutary.

Furthermore, it would be foolish to look at these details, so strictly and explicitly prescribed by

YHWH, and not give them due credence. The Lord is not arbitrary and His prescriptions are not

insignificant or pointless. This is not a matter of simply ascribing allegory or symbolism to every

facet of the Tabernacle, as Childs chides.1 It is a matter of recognizing direct, literary

connections and theological significance in the course of salvation history throughout the whole

of Scripture.

The specific verses to be examined in this paper come from a wider section on the

courtyard of the Tabernacle (Ex 27.9-19). While most commentators focus on the mathematical

1 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1974), 538-9.

1

dimensions of the courtyard and speculate on the placement of the Tabernacle within the

courtyard,2 this paper will emphasize the westward orientation3, at odds with assertions made by

Hyatt, Childs, and Propp.4 Although the numerical scheme of the Tabernacle courtyard is also

divinely instituted and worth exploring, it has been sufficiently addressed in the commentaries

referenced and little more can be added to the discussion. Instead, this paper will examine the

westward orientation of the Tabernacle as an influential example in the growing understanding

of Temple (and Tabernacle) theology as Edenic in nature. This task will be accomplished

through the examination of our present text in light of the temples of Scripture and the precedent

for seeing Tabernacle theology in Genesis 1 – 3. Understanding the creation account in Genesis 1

– 3 in Tabernacle terminology has a number of proponents who will be explored below. Yet all

of them, from critical to conservative, tend to miss the greater significance of the eastern

entrance of Eden (and the temples of Israel). Even those who do make the connection between

Eden’s entrance and those of the temples, fail to grasp, or at least explicate, the significance of

the temples sharing an orientation with the Garden of Eden. This significance is inherent and

obvious in the Genesis narrative and can be demonstrated in the cultic life of the children of

Israel through the Day of Atonement. That is to say, as sinful man approaches and enters the

Tabernacle courtyard, and as the priest enters the Tent of Meeting where God dwells with His

people, a restoration and recreation takes place through the sacrificial system, whereby man

returns to the Garden of Eden in full communion with his Creator.

2 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967), 368. Also, John I. Durham, Exodus (Dallas: Word Books, 1987), 378-9. And Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus = [Shemot] : The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 174. 3 The word “orientation” is an unfortunate but necessary word for this discussion. Etymologically “orientation” is derived from the “orient” and therefore implies an eastward focus. For the purpose of this paper, “orientation” will mean simply the direction of focus, or the way in which the people’s attention would be directed. As such, “western orientation” should not be read as an oxymoron. 4 J. Philip Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (London: Oliphants, 1971), 278. Also, Childs, 538. And, William H. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 426.

2

III. HOUSES, ALTARS, AND SACRED SITES

Pillars, Stones, and High Places

A key theme throughout the Old Testament is the erection of stone pillars on sacred sites.

Memorable is Jacob’s pillar at Bethel (Gen 28.20-22) or the twelve stones from the Jordan River

in Joshua 4. Though Genesis 28.22 refers to the former as “God’s house” few if any scholars are

willing to see this pillar as potentially referring to an actual house or edifice where worship took

place. Is synecdoche out of reach for this text? Could not the reference to a pillar being erected,

or altars in Genesis 12.7 and 13.18, be such a figure of speech where the whole is referred to by

this significant part (cf. Ps 43.4)?

In Menahem Haran’s seminal work on Israelite places of worship, he leaves little room

for discussion of these pillars and altars in the J and E source traditions.5 While he is not willing

to examine the synecdoche angle, he does allow for the understanding that worship, that is

sacrifice, took place at locations where altars were erected. In this way Haran, and scholars of his

ilk, are unknowingly returning to Luther. In reference to the pillar erected by Jacob in Genesis

28, Luther said, “Hence the first temple is the one that the patriarch Jacob builds. Of course, it is

not one like ours; it is a heap of stones in a field. Here the church gathered to hear the Word of

God and to perform the sacred rites.”6 No doubt this would be too much for Haran and modern

scholars. Nevertheless for Luther it is right in line with the first family in Eden which will be

discussed below.

Given the lack of explicit biblical detail about these pillars and altars, it is fitting to move

on to the “high places” (הבמות) of Israel. While these also have little structural detail recorded in

5 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1985). 6Martin Luther, vol. 2, Luther's Works, Vol. 2: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works, 2:285 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, ©1960).

3

Scripture, one interesting fact is worth citing. In keeping with the testimony of Scripture

archaeology has found no structure or obelisk that could be classified as part of these high

places.7 Of course, this is understandable given the destruction of these high places before the

end of the First Temple period. Though plausible sites have been discovered and proposed, not

enough conclusive evidence is to be found. Besides their destruction, the only notable accounts

of these high places would be the significant apostasy of Solomon (1 Kings 11.7-8) and the

derogatory reference to Jeroboam’s temple in Bethel as a במות בית (1 Kings 12.31).8

Other Temples in Israel

Besides the pagan influx of high places and the Jerusalem temple of Solomon, Haran

finds that the reader may infer 11 structures from the text of the Old Testament that he is willing

to classify as “temples.9” In this author’s opinion, Haran may be playing too fast and loose with

the term “temple.” The classification for several of these locations is based solely on certain acts

described as taking place at these locations such as vows or oaths. Others receive this

classification because of the presence of something as small as an ephod. Yet others receive

Haran’s classification of “temple” for nothing more than an action done “before the Lord.”

For our discussion of Tabernacle orientation, it is interesting to note that none of these

arbitrary temples, if they are indeed to be read as such, are described in enough detail to provide

the reader with the slightest clue as to architecture, origin, or even purpose!10 If there were

indeed temple structures built at these locations, it was not at the command of YHWH, at least 7 Haran, 21. 8 Ibid., 25. 9 Haran, 26. The 11 are: Shiloh (which Haran takes to be a true temple and not a reference to the Mosaic tabernacle which he deems a priestly utopian tradition); Dan and Bethel (Judg. 18:28-31; 1 Kgs. 12:28-9); Gilgal in the hill-country of Ephraim (1 Sam. 7:16; 11:14-15; 13:4-15; 15:12-21, 33; Amos 4:4; 5:5; Hosea 4:15; 9:15; 12:12); Mizpah in Benjamin (Judg. 20:1-3, 8-10; 21:1, 5, 8; 1 Sam 7:16), Hebron (2 Sam. 2:4; 5:3; 15:7), Bethlehem (Judg. 19:18; 1 Sam 16:2-5; 20:6); Nob (1 Sam 21:1-10); Micayehu’s temple in the hills of Ephraim (Judg. 17 – 18); Ophrah in the territory of Manasseh (Judg. 8:27); Gibeah of Saul (2 Sam 21:1-14). 10 The lack of details may prove to be the undoing of Haran’s broad assignment of the appellation “temple” to these rarely treated sacred sites which in most cases have nothing more than the phrase, “before the Lord” to convince Haran of their existence as actual temples.

4

not as we have recorded in the Old Testament. As such, whether or not these sites were given

westward orientation is rather irrelevant. If anything, the westward orientation of the three

structures that are described in the Old Testament is accentuated by the additional temples of

Israel that are left in obscurity.

Sacred Sites across the Near East

Before moving forward and discussing these three divinely instituted sanctuaries, we

must briefly explore some commonalities between the temples of Israel and the temples of other

ancient Near Eastern civilizations. John Walton makes an important distinction between ancient

temples and modern houses of worship. Speaking generally he says, “The role of the temple in

the ancient world is not primarily a place for people to gather in worship like modern churches. It

is a place for the deity – sacred space…When the deity rests in the temple it means that he is

taking command, that he is mounting to his throne to assume his rightful place and his proper

role.11” That the Tabernacle and temples of Israel are the dwelling place of YHWH is readily

apparent throughout the Pentateuch as well as the Psalms.

Beyond this insight, Walton also sees a connection between the created cosmos and the

temples of various ancient Near Eastern deities. This will be explored in full below. For now it is

useful to note that across the ancient Near East, temples were richly decorated and constructed

with symbols of the cosmos.12 One of Walton’s strongest proofs for this claim is the names that

several temples bear. Walton writes, “Many of the names given to temples in the ancient world

also indicate their cosmic role. Among the dozens of possible examples, note especially the

temple of Esharra (‘House of the Cosmos’) and Etemenanki (‘House of the Foundation Platform

11 John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 75. 12 Ibid., 79.

5

between Heaven and Earth’).13” Though the temples and Tabernacle of Israel bear no such

cosmic names, they do bear the name of the one God of all creation.

When discussing the parallels between pagan civilizations and ancient Israel, scholars are

often too quick to ascribe the similarities to Israel’s adoption of a pre-existing Canaanite or

Mesopotamian theology. The differences, the least of which is not Israel’s monotheism, should

be enough to temper these hasty conclusions. In the case of ancient temples, Beale does an

excellent job avoiding this scholarly pit fall. Beale claims that pagan temples were cosmically

oriented, with eastern entrances and western altars, to mimic the course of the sun through the

sky. While noting the similar orientation of Israel’s temples Beale does not ascribe this to Israel’s

dependence on pagan theology. Rather, Beale claims, “this resemblance of pagan temples to

Israel’s temple probably was due, at least in part, to a refracted and marred understanding of the

true conception of the temple that was present from the very beginning of human history.14” The

temple of which Beale speaks, that is present from the very beginning, is the Garden of Eden and

the cosmos as a whole. Whereas the temples of Israel marvelously reflect this first temple, the

pagan temples of false gods are at best “marred” and “refracted” images of this true and first

temple of YHWH.

IV. THE DIVINELY INSTITUTED HOUSES OF GOD

Exodus 27 and 36: Divine Details Disregarded

When it comes to the orientation of the Tabernacle and its courtyard, the commentators

are either silent or wrong. As was mentioned above, Cassuto fixates on the numerical

13 Ibid., 80. 14 G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos, 2004), 29.

6

schematism and gives no explanation for the Ark of the Covenant being placed in the west and

the entrance to both the courtyard and the Holy Place being in the east.15

Beyond the commentaries on Exodus we also find many works on the Tabernacle. Some

go no further than depicting the Tabernacle in all of its technical detail.16 Others go to great

lengths to allegorize the Tabernacle and put forward interesting typology.17 In all of their work,

however, little if anything is said of the eastern entrance to the Tabernacle and the significance of

worshipers walking the road back to Eden.

Most concerning are the commentators who do make note of the eastern entrance.

Regrettably they mistake an entrance facing east with importance, prominence, and focus. Hyatt

speaks of the courtyard and says, “It was entered by a gate on the eastern side indicating that the

Tabernacle was oriented toward the rising sun.18” While it is true the entrance to the Tabernacle

would face east, the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies sat in the west. All who

approached the Tabernacle for the festivals and sacrifices would be coming from the east with

their eyes to the western Holy of Holies.

Other commentators do no better. Childs has a glib comment that in this layout, “easterly

direction [receives] the place of honor.19” Childs goes no further to explain how this is the case.

It would seem to even a casual reader of the text that the Tabernacle itself is the place of honor

and in that the Holy of Holies would be most honorable! To Propp’s credit he does address an

aspect of the Hebrew text left unpacked by the other commentators. In the Hebrew of verse 13,

two words for east are used, both with directional he’s. Unfortunately Propp claims this is

15 Cassuto, 368. 16 James Strong, The Tabernacle of Israel in the Desert: With Detailed Plans, Drawings and Descriptions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1952). 17 William G. Moorehead, Studies in Mosaic Institutions: The Tabernacle, the Priesthood, Sacrifices and Feasts of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1957). Henry W. Soltau, The Tabernacle: The Priesthood and the Offerings (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1972). And James F. Spink, Types and Shadows of Christ in the Tabernacle (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946). 18 Hyatt, 278. 19 Childs, 537.

7

rhetorical redundancy on the part of the P source and thus translates the first word (קדמה) as

“forward.”20 He justifies this by stating, “Israelites ‘oriented’ themselves by facing toward the

sunrise.” This translation and its explanation fail to account for the westward facing worshipers

who approach YHWH’s sanctuary and His holy presence. To translate the east as “forward” is to

describe the children of Israel with their backs to the Ark of the Covenant! Regardless of their

possible day to day orientation, in the context of the Tabernacle and Israelite worship, west is

“forward” as this is where they must return, to the presence of YHWH in their midst (Ex 25.8).

Finally, Ezekiel 8.16 lands the most devastating blow to Hyatt and Propp’s claims. One of the

syncretistic and idolatrous abominations listed in Ezekiel 8 is the twenty-five men with their

backs to the temple of YHWH, explicitly with their faces to the east (ופניהם קדמה) as they are

“worshiping to the east, to the Sun” (מש דמה לש ם ק In light of this abomination it is .(משתחוית

impossible to claim that Israel’s worship was oriented to the east.

Additionally, Propp’s dismissal of the “rhetorical redundancy” overlooks any attempt to

see these two easterly words as an emphatic statement used to draw greater attention to the

orientation of the Tabernacle and courtyard. Instead, he follows the course of others before him

in overlooking and disregarding this subtle, yet intriguing, feature of the text. The fact remains,

no one enters the courtyard or the Tabernacle without turning his back to the sun rise and gazing

west to the Holy Place.

1 Kings 5 – 8 and 1 Chronicles 28.11-19: Solomon’s Temple and the Command of YHWH

In order to establish and defend the significance of the eastern entrance and western Holy

of Holies of the Tabernacle it is best for us to demonstrate the consistency with which the Old

Testament maintains this orientation throughout its places of worship. In 1 Chronicles 28.19,

20 Propp, 426.

8

after King David had passed on the plans of the Temple to his son, Solomon declares, “All this in

writing from the hand of YHWH he made clear to me, all the work of the pattern (translation

mine).” Interpreters differ on whether this refers to Exodus 25-31 or to new plans passed on to

David through inspiration.21

Whether this construction is from a direct revelation of God to David or from David’s

reflection on revealed scripture, it is notable that the temple maintains the east – west orientation

of the Tabernacle. The Holy of Holies remains in the west and the entrance to the temple remains

in the east. Whatever theological implications may be found in the orientation of the Tabernacle,

they still applied even when the children of Israel had inherited the Promised Land and built the

temple for YHWH. Even though they are no longer sojourners in the wilderness, they still must

travel from east to west in their worship at the temple.

Ezekiel 40 – 43: The Eschatological Temple Opens to the East

As it pertains to our discussion of east – west orientation and the theological implications,

the eschatological temple of Ezekiel’s vision is potentially more influential even than Solomon’s

temple.22 Here too we find a temple with a western oriented Holy of Holies and an eastern

entrance. It also has inner and outer court entrances in the north and south as well as the east. Let

the additional gates not deter the reader from seeing the significance of the east – west

orientation, for the east facing outer gate gains prominence over the others in that it is the gate

through which YHWH Himself entered (Ezek 44.1-2)!

Even more significance is placed on the East Gate when the inner gate is opened for the

Sabbath and the New Moon as a significant part of the eschatological temple liturgy (Ezek 46.1).

Yet more emphasis is granted to the east – west orientation when Ezekiel sees the river that

21 Childs, 529-532 provides a valuable discussion on the history and changes in interpretation of critical scholars who use these similarities as justification for giving a late date to the Tabernacle section of Exodus. 22 Almost any commentary will list the similarities and differences between the Ezekiel Temple and the Solomon Temple. The exhaustive list and potential significance is outside the interests of this paper.

9

flows out from the temple, rushing forth from west to east (Ezek 47.1). The significance of this

orientation and its connection to the Tabernacle and Solomon’s temple cannot be overlooked.

Nevertheless, commentators still struggle to find meaning in the orientation. In the case

of Ezekiel, at least, Allen makes the almost obvious connection of the Israelites in exile to the

east.23 Yet when it comes to the temple itself, he can say very little about the theological

implications. Allen writes, “The account is an architectural symphony, an intricate composition

that counterparts the predicament of exile and the promise of restoration in a grand celebration of

God’s sure purposes.24” Without diminishing or denying the importance of God’s promises and

sure purposes, we can say from the breadth of evidence from the Tabernacle to Solomon’s

temple that the theological implications of this eschatological temple’s orientation indeed may be

farther reaching than just a promise of restoration for Babylonian captives.25

Hummel provides the most salutary contribution in this survey of the Tabernacle and

temples. Though he does not draw theological implications out of the east – west orientation of

the temple compound, he does note more significant connections than either Tuell or Allen. In

the case of the river that flows east of the temple, Hummel makes the necessary connection to

both the rivers of the Garden of Eden and Revelation 22.26 Tuell briefly references Genesis 2.8-

14 on his way to other ancient Near Eastern parallels.27 Allen only lists the rivers of Eden as a

“contributing tradition, as is often claimed,” citing Baltzer, Levenson, and Fishbane.28 Hummel

is correct to draw great attention to the connection between Genesis, Ezekiel, and Revelation.

The best interpretation indeed will be the one that takes into account the unity of Scripture and

23 Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48 (Nashville-Alanta-London-Vancouver: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 256. 24 Ibid., 235-6. 25 Nor will an expanded interpretation on the orientation of the Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and the Eschatological Temple deny the Christological or typological interpretation of Ezekiel’s vision that is provided in Ezekiel: 21 – 48 by Hummel. 26 Horace D. Hummel, Ezekiel 21-48 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2007), 1153. 27 Steven S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1992), 69. 28 Allen, 280.

10

salvation history, told from Genesis to Revelation. The same is true of interpreting Exodus

27.12-16 in light of Genesis 1 – 3.

V. GENESIS 1 – 3 THE COSMIC TEMPLE

Tabernacle and Temple Symbolism in Genesis 1 – 3

As has been foreshadowed throughout this paper, the language of Genesis 1 – 3 lends

itself to making any number of connections between God’s creation and His sanctuaries in Israel.

Though this paper is primarily concerned with the eastern entrance to the Tabernacle, seen also

of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3.24, it is helpful to explore more of the shared symbols in

order to establish a good precedent.

In Beale’s excellent work on the dwelling places of God, their theology and importance

for missiology and eschatology, he roots his thesis in this understanding of the Garden of Eden

as the first temple. Beale writes, “I will argue that the Garden of Eden was the first archetypal

temple, and that it was the model for all subsequent temples.29” We can even find biblical reason

to make this connection as we read the Psalms. For instance, Asaph gives us strong reason to

make this connection between creation and YHWH’s Tabernacle. Psalm 78.69 wonderfully

describes YHWH building his holy place, his sanctuary, as He did the heavens and the earth.

Beale is correct to take this simile to mean more than just YHWH built both, but that they

actually resemble one another in form and function.30

Outside the Bible there is a long history of interpretation that speaks of the Garden of

Eden as YHWH’s temple. In a slightly more nuanced sense, Beale gives examples of

interpretations claiming earthly temples reflect YHWH’s heavenly temple. Beale cites Tg 2

Chronicles 6:2, Tg Pseudo-Jonathan Exodus 15:17, Midrash Rabbah Numbers 4:13, 12:12,

Midrash Psalms 30:1, and Ranhuma Yelammedenu Exodus 11:1-2 as affirming that the earthly

29 Beale, 26. 30 Ibid., 31-32.

11

temples “correspond in some significant manner to the heavens, especially a heavenly temple.31”

Yet we also can find support for the specific view that the Garden of Eden is a temple. Brooke

turns to the book of Jubilees to demonstrate this interpretation. He writes, “According to Jubilees

Adam and Eve are created outside the garden of Eden and brought to it after forty and eight days

respectively (Jub 3.9, 12), periods which correspond with the laws of Lev. 12.2-5 indicating that

Eden was perceived to be a sanctuary.32” Thus, in the terms of Jubilees, Adam and Eve were

brought into the first ever Holy of Holies.

These general claims of creation as a sanctuary are confirmed and supported by the

individual symbols that connect the Tabernacle to creation and the Garden of Eden. Here we will

provide just three examples that demonstrate the similarities between Genesis 1 – 3 and the

houses of God in the Old Testament. The first one to which we direct our attention is the

Menorah. Walton makes an astute observation regarding the language of Genesis 1 when he

writes, “In the Pentateuch’s descriptions of the tabernacle, the lamp and its olive oil are provided

for ‘light’ (especially Ex 25:6; 35:14; Num 4:9). This word for light is the same word used to

describe the celestial bodies in day four (rather than call them sun and moon).33” Beale also

seeks to find a connection between the lampstand and Genesis 1 – 3. Unfortunately he does not

root his interpretation in a sound linguistic connection as Walton does. Instead, Beale takes the

descriptions of the lampstand and their tree like appearance as an indication that the Menorah is a

symbol of the Tree of Life.34 Certainly a Tabernacle furnishing may symbolize more than one

thing in creation. However the lack of linguistic evidence leaves this reader unconvinced. Were

Beale to demonstrate this connection through the cultic practices of Israel that explanation would

31 Ibid., 32. 32 George J. Brooke, "The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 419. 33 Walton, 81-82. 34 Beale, 71.

12

be convincing as well. Unfortunately such a connection cannot be made. The Menorah may be

designed to look like a tree, but this does not necessitate that it represents the very Tree of Life

that stands at the center of the Garden of Eden and is withheld from Adam and Eve upon their

expulsion.

A second example of the connection between the Tabernacle and the Garden of Eden is

not a particular furnishing but rather an action of God. Beale draws special attention to the

morphology and semantics of God’s walking about in the Garden. He writes, “The same Hebrew

verbal form (stem) mithallek (hithpael) used for ‘walking back and forth’ in the Garden (Gen.

3:8), also describes God’s presence in the tabernacle (Lev. 26:12; Deut 23:14 [MT 15]; 2 Sam.

7:6-7).35” Now הלך is a very common verb and the hithpael does appear quite frequently outside

of this context. Nevertheless such a connection should not be ignored. Given all of the evidence

connecting Eden with the temples of Israel, such a verbal connection may indeed be included in

this discussion.

A third example, perhaps most intriguing, is the role of Adam in Eden as a parallel to the

priesthood. Adam’s tasks, given in Genesis 2.15 (ה ה ולשמר are often translated in such a (לעבד

way as to depict Adam as little more than a gardener. Yet in serving and guarding the Garden of

Eden, Adam is set apart as the priest of this temple. The child of Israel and student of the Torah

would know that these two words (ה ה ולשמר are only used in tandem elsewhere to ,(לעבד

describe the priestly office (Num 3.7-8; cf. Ezek 40.45-46; 44.14-16). Beale notices that there is

more to Adam’s task than tilling soil and pruning hedges. Beale defends this understanding by

invoking Tg Neofiti which expands Adam’s job description to be “to toil in the Law and to

observe its commandments,” thereby making explicit what is implicit in Moses’ use of לעבדה

35 Ibid., 66.

13

36and ולשמרה in describing Adam’s duties. This priestly interpretation of Adam’s office

illuminates the grievous nature of his sin, his failure to guard (שמר) the Edenic Torah of Genesis

2.16-17. Once Adam fails his priestly duty, a cherubim takes over the guard (שמר) in Genesis

3.24. Beale draws a wonderful connection between the cherubim of Genesis 3.24 and those of

the temple and Tabernacle decorations.37 Unfortunately he does not catch the further connection

inherent in the text of Genesis 3.24, namely the eastern entrance that the cherubim guards and the

identical pathway into the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies.

Gordon Wenham does catch the significance of the eastern entrance and mentions it at

the very beginning of his essay.38 Right from the very beginning he mentions the stationing of

the cherubim at the eastern end of the garden. And he asks, “Could not the expelled couple re-

enter the garden from some other direction?” His question is posed somewhat tongue-in-cheek to

intentionally lead the reader to the observation that the Garden of Eden is at the very least

enclosed and properly speaking should be seen as a sanctuary or temple. He states, “The garden

of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but

as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship

him.39”

As promising as Wenham’s introductory remarks are his essay has severe limitations.

The greatest limitation is that he only discusses the sanctuary symbolism in light of the Garden

of Eden and Genesis 2.5ff. He includes no material from Genesis 1.1 – 2.4 and the potential

cosmic symbolism that Beale has proposed. Due to this limitation Wenham misses several

36 Ibid., 66-67. 37 Ibid., 70. 38 Gordon J. Wenham, "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story," in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumara (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399. 39 Ibid.

14

important connections, such as the Menorah and Day Four of Genesis 1, discussed above.

Despite these limitations, Wenham’s essay is nevertheless foundational for any study on the

temple symbolism in Genesis 1 – 3.

Wenham draws special attention to several commonalities between Eden and Israel’s

sanctuaries. One observation that has yet to be discussed in sufficient detail is the Tree of Life.

Discussing the Tree of Life’s possible parallel in the temple, Wenham states, “The idea that

fullness of life is to be found in the sanctuary is of course a basic principle of the sacrificial law

and a recurrent them of the Psalms.40” While his comments on the fullness of life are not

misguided, I would approach the Tree of Life in a different manner. Some seem quick to connect

the Tree of Life with the Menorah (as with Beale above) or even one of the twin pillars of

Solomon’s temple.41 No doubt these have garden imagery inherent in their artistic form;

however I would draw the reader’s attention to that which is missing from these artistic “trees”:

the fruit! The Tree of Life is withheld from man that he might not take from its fruit, eat, and

live. Despite all the other correlations between Eden, the cosmos, and the temples of Israel, I

would hesitate to force a Tree of Life connection upon the furnishings. If the Tree of Life is no

represented, its omission speaks volumes more than its reflection in the Menorah or a pillar e

would! Its absence, even from these dwelling places of God with man, speaks to the unfinished

nature of Israel’s worship and sacrificial system. The lack of a Tree of Life, whose fruit grants

eternal life, demands a fulfillment and looks forward to that fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the true

vine (John 15.5) and the final culmination of the age when the Tree of Life is seen again in

city of Revelatio

t

ver

the

n 22.

40 Ibid., 401. 41 Mark S. Smith, "Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People)," in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 7.

15

If we now return to our focal point, the eastern entrance of Eden and the Tabernacle, we

find Wenham sadly lacking in the end. He draws attention to the eastern entrance of Eden solely

to establish Eden as a temple. He thus offers no discussion on the theological significance that

men are once again entering that from which their first parents were expelled. So despite

Wenham’s useful insights into the Garden of Eden as God’s first temple, he lacks the needed

attention to Genesis 3.24 and the implications of the expulsion of Adam and the return of Israel

through their cultic life. Indeed a lack of attention paid to Genesis 3.24 will inevitably lead to

such a limited view of the temple theology in Eden and the restoration theology of the

Tabernacle and temples of Israel. If one does not acknowledge the fall and expulsion from Eden,

the eastern entrance remains little more than a quaint commonality. It cannot be the road to

reconciliation with YHWH if the chasm between man and God is overlooked and ignored.

Genesis 3.23-24: Man Cast out East of Eden – How Can He Return?

We now come to the point where greater theological significance can be explored and

applied to Exodus 27 and the orientation of the Tabernacle. To do this we must go back to the

beginning. After Adam and Eve’s rebellion in the Garden of Eden, God levels His divine verdict

and casts them out of Eden. Genesis 3.23-24 states, “Therefore YHWH God sent him from the

Garden of Eden to work (לעבד) the ground from which he was taken. 24And he drove the man out

and placed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim with a flaming sword that turned this

way and that to guard (לשמר) the way to the tree of life (translation mine).”

In the Garden of Eden, God dwelt with man who was in a state of original righteousness.

After the fall into Sin, God’s presence among sinners would mean destruction. God sent man out

and blocked the eastern entrance, the path to the tree of life. Yet God in His love for Man

prepared a way to dwell with His people (Ex 25.8). Through the sacrificial system and ritual

16

purity of the Israelite worship, the children of Israel could re-enter from east to west and dwell

with their God, theologically re-entering the Garden of Eden albeit in a manner that still looked

forward to Christ. Truly this would not find its final realization until the death of Christ Jesus and

the tearing of the curtain in the Holy of Holies (Matt 27.51; Mk 15.38; Lk 23.45). And this

realized eschatology will not be brought to its final fulfillment until the day Jesus returns.

Any discussion of Genesis 1 – 3 and temple symbolism must take the narrative of the fall

into account. Beale’s lengthy explanations of symbols that connect the Tabernacle and the

cosmos are fascinating but they never deal with the problem of sin, how and why man must

access this local microcosm of the cosmic temple. Such a point is only featured in the eastern

entrance. After Genesis 3.24 man is outside of God’s good creation. He is in the state of un-

creation. He must get past the gatekeeper, the cherub with the flaming sword. To get past this

guardian man must undergo purification and justification, the basin and the bronze altar, water

and blood. So in Beale’s fervor to go from the cosmic temple to missiology and on to

eschatology, he completely ignores the human problem and need for atonement, the bloodshed at

the altar (the furnishing that has no parallel in Eden).

Beale’s failure to look at sin’s role in his temple cosmology is demonstrated best in, of all

places, the east – west orientation. In speaking of other ancient Near Eastern temples, Beale

observes, “the east-west orientation of the axial path, which led to the innermost sanctum,

signified the daily circuit of the sun and had solar images along its route.42” This is all well and

good, but Genesis 1 – 3 does not draw attention to the directional movement of the lights.

Genesis 1 – 3 does not even provide them with the names “sun and moon.” What Genesis 1 – 3

does highlight is the expulsion of man from Eden and the direction of the path back in to the

Garden. Yet Beale fails to draw out these distinctions when discussing YHWH’s dwelling

42 Beale, 55.

17

places. Lundquist also proposes that the temple is oriented with the cosmos to serve as an

“astronomical observatory.43” His conclusion is that the people at such a temple find themselves,

through the temple, being oriented in the universe. This might work for other ancient Near

Eastern cultures but Genesis 1 – 3 tells a different story. In this account there is no mention of a

cosmic path of sun and moon. They are just lights placed in the sky. The direction that matters,

that corresponds with the temples of Israel, is the eastern entrance through which man was

expelled and through which he must be brought back.

Already we see the theological implications of an east – west oriented Tabernacle. A

limited view that cannot see past the sunrise and sunset offers no explanation for the role of sin

in man’s condition and his need for reconciliation and communion with God. Understanding the

east – west Tabernacle orientation through Genesis 3.24 and the expulsion of Adam and Eve

does allow for such a theological understanding of temple orientation as testimony to God

ushering His people back into His real presence. Though no explicit verse of Scripture says, “this

is the meaning of the Tabernacle’s orientation,” and though few commentators even address the

Tabernacle’s orientation (or the eastern entrance of the Garden of Eden for that matter!), the

unity of Scripture allows us to see this connection. And one commentator, Martin Luther, did see

the implications of the eastern entrance of the Garden and the eastern entrance of the temples.

Martin Luther stands unrivaled among the commentators as he connects the east road to

Eden with the eschatological temple of Ezekiel 40. Though he does not specifically mention the

Tabernacle or Solomon’s Temple the uniformity of their orientation remains. As Luther says,

“Likewise, in connection with the temple structure in Ezekiel (40:6) mention is made of the gate

of the sanctuary which faced toward the east, obviously to have us realize that the temple was a

figure of Paradise; for if nature had remained perfect, Paradise would have been the temple of

43 John M. Lundquist, "What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology," in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, ed. George E. Mendenhall, et. al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 210.

18

the entire world.44” One might look at the Tabernacle and Solomon’s temple in the same light.

The gate of those sanctuaries faced east, following Luther’s thought, obviously to have us realize

that the temple and tabernacle were figures of paradise.

Most critical scholars, so concerned with mythology, sources, and the cherubim never see

this connection.45 Yet other scholars come ever so close to seeing the theological implications of

Genesis 3.23-24 and Israelite worship at the Tabernacle. Waltke speaks of “God [cleansing] his

temple-garden” by casting out Adam, but offers nothing else on the significance of this for later

temple or Tabernacle worship.46

Keil & Delitzsch make note of the eastern way to the Tree of Life, but offer no

substantive explanation.47 Their fault lies in their nearsightedness. If one understands the east

entrance to the Tabernacle as a westward return to dwell with God as man did in the Garden,

albeit now a concealed presence, then in a very real and sacramental sense these children of

Israel are re-entering paradise. They do not yet have the Tree of Life which returns in Revelation,

yet they have God’s presence with His promise of forgiveness.

John Calvin draws more attention to the eastern entrance of the garden of Eden than most

modern scholars, but he leaves it at that: an entrance to the garden.48 Moving on to the Tree of

Life, however, Calvin comes closer to seeing the theological significance of the Tabernacle’s

orientation for what takes place in it. He writes, “[Adam] was excommunicated from the tree of

44 Martin Luther and Pelikan, Jaroslav, Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 1-5 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 1958), 230. 45 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1972), 94-5. Also, Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889), 171-6. cf. among the conservatives: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1 - 17 (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990), 208-212. One could imagine how the position of historical criticism might try to put the cart before the horse and use this connection to strengthen an exilic or post-exilic date to this section of Genesis. Then again, one wonders if J would have had such priestly, temple oriented connections in mind! Perhaps it is all for the best that the critics have left this arrow in the quiver for our more sanctified use. 46 Bruce K. Waltki and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 96. 47 Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 107-8. 48 Jean Calvin and John King, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948), 185.

19

life, but a new remedy was offered him in sacrifices.49” Here Calvin moves slightly ahead of

Keil & Delitzsch who see it as impossible for man to return. Calvin rightly connects the

sacrificial system (if that is in fact what he means by “sacrifices”) with restoring the life lost in

the Fal

cance of

nce

oes

n?

AND THE CULTIC LIFE OF ISRAEL

ovements,

the orie

of , of

Most Holy Place prepared the way for the counter-movement from it

the sanctuary. ” ce of

ls between Genesis 3.23-24

and the Tabernacle orientation is the expulsion of the scapegoat.

l.

Having seen how giants like Luther and Calvin approach the theological signifi

the Tabernacle orientation, it would be good for us to explore an example of how this

significance is reflected in the Tabernacle worship itself. If entering through the eastern entra

is a return to the steadfast love of God’s presence, and therefore a preview of Paradise, d

exiting the Tabernacle, being driven eastward, ever resemble sinful Adam’s expulsio

VI. TABERNACLE ORIENTATION

Leviticus 16- The Eastbound Scapegoat

In his commentary on Leviticus, John Kleinig picks up on the back and forth m

ntation of the Day of Atonement. He writes,

“Whereas the altar for burnt offering was the usual point of orientation for the performance of the daily services, the Most Holy Place was the point of orientation for the ritual performed on the Day of Atonement... On the one hand, there was the inwardmovement of sacrificial animals into the courtyard, the transition of animal blood from the courtyard into the Most Holy Place, and the transportation of animal meat and fat from the courtyard to the altar. On the other hand, there was the counter-movement blood from the Most Holy Place to the tent of meeting and the altar for burnt offeringthe scapegoat from the courtyard to the desert, and of the leftovers from the sin offerings from the courtyard to the ash dump outside the camp. Thus the main ritual movement into the outwards with the extension of holiness to the altar and the expulsion of impurity from

50

Although Kleinig does not make the theological point of this paper regarding the significan

the east and the west, he nevertheless picks up on the movement within the same scheme.

Perhaps the most significant point for our discussion of the paralle

49 Ibid. 50 John W. Kleinig, Leviticus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2003), 342. emphasis mine

20

The scapegoat, bearing the sins of the people, is expelled through the eastern entrance

and sent into the wilderness. Though somewhat speculative, the touch points are present. Man

who brought sin onto his whole human race is sent out east of God’s Eden to wander the

unchartered territory outside the Garden and to suffer his sentence of death. Likewise the

scapegoat, bearing the sins of the people is taken away from the Holy Place, out through the

eastern entry, and sent out to wander in the wilderness to Azazel.51 Both sin bearers are expelled

from their respective sanctuaries and sent east to wander and die in the wilderness.

VII. CONCLUSION

Through this examination of the Tabernacle in Exodus 27, Solomon’s temple, the

eschatological temple of Ezekiel, and the Garden of Eden, we have seen the common theme of

an eastern entrance to the respective sanctuaries. Likewise, each Holy Place is focused westward

to the Holy of Holies. More than just history or architecture, the significance behind the east –

west orientation still applies to Christians sojourning on this earth, waiting on Christ’s return. As

the children of Israel would enter the courtyard, drawing near to the Ark of the Covenant and

YHWH’s presence, they were brought back into a state of heaven on earth, moving from east to

west along the road once blocked by the cherubim. Though they will not eat of the Tree of Life

yet, they are brought back into the presence of their God. For at the Tabernacle God made them

holy, wiping away their sin that He might dwell with them in peace and not destruction.

That peace which was shattered at the fall in Genesis 3, separating Man from God and

casting the former out east of Eden, was not permanent. God provided a means by which His

people could be forgiven. That means is the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Leading up to the Incarnation, the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle and temple anticipated the

full atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Moving forward from the death of Christ and the

51 While the lengthy discussion of who or what is Azazel, it will suffice to mention here the BDB suggestion of “entire removal” implying the removal of all the sin of the people (BDB, 736).

21

tearing of the temple curtain, the situation is slightly different, yet the significance of the east –

west orientation in Israel’s worship still holds significance for Christian worship.

Since the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Church is given her means of grace in the

Word and Sacraments. In the Sacraments the Christian Church is given what the Old Testament

Church had in the Tabernacle worship: Faith in the Messiah and forgiveness of sins. Now in His

Church God cleanses His saints not through ritual washings but through Holy Baptism. God now

forgives and sanctifies the Church through the blood of Jesus Christ given us in the Sacrament of

Holy Communion. In this way we theologically move from east to west to be in the Real

Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.52

Going forward Christian congregations may choose to take this Tabernacle theology into

consideration as they build and orient their churches. The significance of movement from east to

west as a return to Paradise still resonates with Christian worship. Regardless of the direction of

a congregation’s nave and chancel, the pastor may teach his people about what takes place in the

Christian liturgy by using the Tabernacle illustration. A Christian approaches the sanctuary from

dwelling in the sinful world. He enters the narthex from the “east,” the wilderness outside of the

Tabernacle courtyard, and proceeds into the nave where he leaves the world behind. In the nave

he dwells in the presence of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He has returned to the

beginning, to the Garden of Eden, just as he experiences the realized eschatology of heaven on

earth in the Divine Service. Finally, whereas the Holy of Holies was off limits to all but the High

Priest (and him only once a year), for the Christian the Holy of Holies is given to them under the

52 An interesting discussion to have at this point would be the long-standing Christian practice of putting church entrances in the West and altars in the East (opposite the orientation of the Tabernacle). Pope Benedict XVI has gone so far as to strongly encourage, “wherever possible, we should definitely take up again the apostolic tradition of facing the east, both in the building of churches and in the celebration of the liturgy (Ratzinger, 70).” The reasoning often cited for this practice is the eschatological hope of Christ’s second coming as the sunrise per Psalm 19.4b-6 and Malachi 4.2. The sacramental implications of Tabernacle theology and God dwelling with His people, as explored in this paper through the vehicle of orientation, would make an interesting counterpoint in the discussion of “best practice” in church architecture.

22

bread and wine. The chancel is theirs. The Sacrament and forgiveness is theirs. Jesus Christ, the

fulfillment of the Tabernacle, is theirs.

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20-48. Nashville-Alanta-London-Vancouver: Thomas Nelson

Publishers, 1990.

Atwater, Edward Elias. History and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews. New

York: Dodd & Mead, 1875.

Beale, G. K.. The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place

of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos, 2004.

Brooke, George J. "The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls." In Temple and Worship in

Biblical Israel, edited by John Day. London: T & T Clark, 2005. 417-434.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, James Strong, and Wilhelm Gesenius. The

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the

Biblical Aramaic: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong's Exhaustive

Concordance of the Bible. 1906. Reprint, Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1996.

Calvin, Jean, and John King. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis. Grand

Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. 1st English ed. Jerusalem: Magnes

Press, Hebrew University, 1967.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville:

Westminster Press, 1974.

Cole, R. Alan. Exodus Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 1981.

23

Delitzsch, Franz, and Sophia Taylor. A New Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1889.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Dallas: Word Books, 1987.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1 - 17. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult

Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake, Ind.:

Eisenbrauns, 1985.

Haran, Menahem, and Michael V. Fox. Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem

Haran. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbraun, 1996.

Hayward, C.T.R. "Understandings of the Temple Service in the Septuagint Pentateuch." In

Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John Day. London: T & T Clark, 2005.

385-400.

Holy Types: Or, The Gospel in Leviticus. A series of Lectures on the Hebrew Ritual. 1859.

Reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972.

Hummel, Horace D. Ezekiel 21-48. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2007.

Hurowitz, Victor A. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the

Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Hurowitz, Victor A. "YHWH's Exalted House - Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of

Solomon's Temple." In Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John Day.

London: T & T Clark, 2005. 63-110.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Commentary on Exodus. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, the

Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949.

Kittel, Rudolf, Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, Hans Peter Rüger, and G. E. Weil. [Torah,

24

Neviim u-Khetuvim] = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio funditus renovata. ed.:

Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977.

Kleinig, John W. Leviticus. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2003.

Lundquist, John M. "What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology." In The Quest for the Kingdom

of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, edited by George E. Mendenhall, et.

al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. 205-220.

Luther, Martin, and Jaroslav Pelikan. Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 1-5. St. Louis, MO:

Concordia Pub. House, 1958.

Moorehead, William G. Studies in Mosaic Institutions: The Tabernacle, the Priesthood,

Sacrifices and Feasts of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1957.

Propp, William Henry. Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

New York: Doubleday, 2006.

Rad, Gerhard von, and John H. Marks. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Louisville:

Westminster Press, 1972.

Ratzinger, Joseph. The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.

Sarna, Nahum M.. Exodus = [Shemot]: the Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS

Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

Smith, Mark S. "Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People)." In Temple and Worship in Biblical

Israel, edited by John Day. London: T & T Clark, 2005. 3-27.

Soltau, Henry W. The Tabernacle: The Priesthood and the Offerings. Illustrated ed. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Spesiser, E.A. "The Rivers of Paradise." In I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient

Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S.

25

26

Hess and David Toshio Tsumara. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 175-182.

Spink, James F. Types and Shadows of Christ in the Tabernacle. New York: Loizeaux Brothers,

1946.

Strong, James. The Tabernacle of Israel in the Desert: With Detailed Plans, Drawings and

Descriptions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1952.

Tuell, Steven Shawn. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press,

1992.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.

Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Wenham, Gordon J. "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story." In I Studied

Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic

Approaches to Genesis 1-11, edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumara.

Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 399-404.