The Spiritual, Secular, Sacred Work of Man

Our English word “paradise” comes to us more immediately from the Latin (paradiso), though originally from the Greek παράδεισος. The word simply means “park” or “garden,” where the emphasis is on the beauty or splendor of it. This is important to know because when the Septuagint uses that word in translating the Hebrew gan (גַּן), it is not only used of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15, 23; 13:10; Joel 2:3) or the promised future state (Rev. 2:7), but also about the king’s “forrest” (Neh. 2:8), and regular “orchards” (Ecc. 2:5; Song. 4:13).1

Naturally, when many come to the text of Genesis 2, they want to know what is hidden about this Garden. The two trees have been subject of much speculation: ‘The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (v. 9). As to what exactly they symbolize, we will take that question up when we look at the Covenant of Works in 2:16-17. Turretin devoted a whole section in Volume 1 of his Institutes to the question, “Does the earthly paradise still exist? Answer: We deny.”2 However the text does at least say here: ‘in the east’ (v. 8). Then you have the familiar rivers: ‘the Tigris’ and ‘the Euphrates’ (v. 14). Some have speculated on ‘Havilah’ (v. 11) and ‘Cush’ (v. 13) used elsewhere in Scripture for Arabia and Egypt.3 However, it would be hasty to conclude that any of these are exactly the same. After all, when Peter says, “the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Pet. 3:6), it is reasonable to suppose that major topography was changed with it.

• The Spiritual Work of Man

• The Secular Work of Man

• The Sacred Work of Man

Doctrine. God spiritually wired men to work and keep the secular and the sacred in a distinctly masculine way.    

Note that when I use the adverb “spiritually” I am deliberately claiming that God did not just wire men with a masculinity that is biological. The biological is the typology of the psychological—i.e., it is the outward sign of an ultimately spiritual nature that is uniquely masculine.

The Spiritual Work of Man.

Here we will mean something different by WORK OF MAN than in the following two points, because here it is God’s work upon man, that is, the divine work. ‘then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature’ (v. 7). Morris sees hints that Adam “had been created somewhere in the world outside of Eden,”4 because of the sequence of verse 8,

“And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

Regardless, what this mainly teaches is as clear as day: that man originates in a special, direct creation of God. This stands against against evolutionary notions of the first “man” in a line of development from earlier hominids.

This divine “breath” is not meant to communicate only that life of the soul (or sentience) that man has in common with animals. We can get caught up in the fact that the word for “being” (נֶפֶשׁ) is used here and is used of animals elsewhere. But that is misleading, because the more prominent word is the word for “life” (חַי) itself, as in “breath of life” (חַיִּ֑ים) and then, in adjectival form, “living (חַיָּֽה) being.”5 Think of the words of the Psalmist,

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Ps. 139:14-15).

Man’s nature has parts, that is, it is a material body; but over above that, the Psalmist speaks of a personal identity that he calls “my soul” which knows God and knows himself. What we see in the Garden here is also the truth of each created human being.6 Man’s form and matter shows again the supremacy of the immaterial over the material—“dust” signifying the common to any other material being.

Why dust? The early Presbyterian of the sixteenth century, Thomas Cartwright, wrote “the work of God in making him is set forth by a similitude of the potter, which of the clay maketh his pots.”7 And he cites Romans 9:21, where Paul himself is borrowing from the imagery of the prophet:

“Then the word of the LORD came to me: ‘O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel” (Jer. 18:5-6).

And so it was of Adam. So the creation of man is also a declaration of God’s sovereignty over all human beings. But is that the only reason for dust?

Cartwright continues, “Seeing it pleased God to make man’s body, more principally, of the basest element, that thereby he would give man to understand of what base matter his body was framed, that so he might have occasion to be lowly and humble in his own sight.”8 Does that have biblical backing? It sure does. The Lord reproved Jehu by saying, “Since I exalted you out of the dust and made you leader over my people Israel” (1 Kings 16:2). Or in the Psalms, “when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust” (Ps. 104:29). Job got the picture when he prayed, “Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?” (Job 10:9) It’s why we hear at funerals, “Ashes to ashes; dust to dust.” This is the lowliness of man.9

The Secular Work of Man.

Together with verse 7, the other key verse is this one: ‘The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it’ (v. 15). This first action word for the man’s task (עָבַד) can be rendered “work” or “serve” or “tend,” or even more specifically “till” or “cultivate.” In this particular context, it has that latter connotation. Revisit verse 5 especially to drive home that context. And the connection between man and the ground is fitting, and it is captured in the Hebrew wordplay. The word GROUND is used four times in verses 5, 6, 7, and 9. The Hebrew word ‘Adam’ means man, and word for ground is ‘adamah’ (אֲדָמָה). We said that the image of God is a glory-reflector. In mankind’s thinking, feeling, and doing, we do all of what we do because of what it says about God. That’s what the action ‘glorify’ means; and that is what the image of God does. But in 1:26-31 that was treated as a unity—man and woman as “mankind.” Now in Chapter 2, we see the diversification of the sexes, so that the masculine brand of the image of God seeks for glory in the cultivation of the ground, because that is where he was taken from. That is the stuff that drives him.

We can say three very simple things about the masculine image of God in this arena. He is (i.) placed, (ii.) local, (iii.) propertied. Let’s draw each of these out and see what an opposite view would be saying to each.

(i.) The masculine image of God is always placed. He is put exactly where he is by God. God “determined [the] allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26).

(ii.) The masculine image of God is always local. His place in not an abstraction.  He cannot be everywhere. He cannot be good for everyone (not in the same way). For Adam, it was Eden. For us, we have a responsibility over our own person and things, then our families and local church. Anything else is an overflow of the principle: “You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much” (Mat. 25:23).10 Conversely, the Psalmist prayed, “O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me” (Ps. 131:1).

(iii.) The masculine image of God is always propertied. He is always a steward of something. That word “property” just comes from the Latin , meaning what is proper to the person. But God entrusts things to every person. They are each of our responsibility to cultivate to render back to Him as an investment in His glory: “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property,” and, in the words to the wicked servant, “at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest” (Mat. 25:14, 27).

Notice how the opposite of these is always a coveting, always a grumbling against God for where and how He has placed you and equipped you. If we are constantly dissatisfied with where we live (or even when), if we are obsessed with changing the world from the top-down, or from the outermost circles of power and influence, or [most obviously from the words of the tenth commandment11] if we are envious of what others have, fixating on what others have or what we lack, then, in all of these ways, we are striking the axe at the roots of Eden, and rebelling against God’s good design. In fact, we are calling it bad.

Kinder even suggests the possibility that the details about those lands and their resources “gives a hint of the cultural development intended for man.”12 So the one river that divides into four is principally ‘to water the garden’ (v. 10), ‘the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there’ (v. 12). Why mention that? One easy explanation is just to remind the reader that this is not mythology but a real place that they could locate the remnants of on their world map. That’s very possible; but I think Kinder was on to something there. It’s also coloring out a picture of purpose.

The Sacred Work of Man.

First, the word ‘Eden’ (עֵדֶן) is said to mean “delight” by many commentators, though the word is used only as the proper title elsewhere in Scripture. When the Tabernacle (and Temple) is later constructed, various elements of the Garden are inscribed as part of God’s instructions, and, as Waltke mentions,

“The Holy of Holies will have all the trees of the garden and life [and] The eschatological temple is compared with Paradise (Rev. 20-21)” and “Cherubim protect its sanctity (Gen. 3:24; Ex. 26:1; 2 Chron. 3:7).”13

But we must bring back those words in the imperative of verse 15, because it turns out that the Hebrew word, to KEEP (שָׁמַר), or else “guard” or “watch” or “preserve” all of which has very clear priestly connotations. The word is used throughout the law of Moses to describe the guarding or protecting business of the priests over the tabernacle, and then eventually, once in the land, over the temple.

But what is a temple but a stage of glory? Like the secular, the sacred is what it is because of what it says about God. But its holiness is refined. We can say it is “more holy,” as “the LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob” (Ps. 87:2).

Now the pietist who has largely taken over the Reformed tradition from the mid-twentieth century to the beginning of this century, have seen this text as merely the “setting of Adam’s probation.” So the idea of Eden as a temple—which I absolutely agree with—is divorced from everything else. The sacred is kept segregated from the secular.

But שָׁמַר also has royal connotations. Waltke points out the other connotations from the Hebrew root for Garden (גַּןן), which is “to be enclosed, fenced off, protected.”14 As it is a territory, Adam was called to be “territorial,” to see this as a place of security for those who would be under his care. But that security, which God could have simply decreed without secondary cause, He chose to delegate to this vice-regent, Adam, to “lead, provide for, and protect.”15 This is what a man is. This is not something unique to Adam. Nor is this something that is merely biological, much less something socially constructed. This is by divine design. All in all, we can say that Adam was made prophet of Eden, being given this word of God in a priority to communicate to Eve; priest of Eden, being given charge to guard the sanctuary; and king of Eden, that charge to build for his generations and repel any intruder. Adam was therefore the first type of Christ.

PRACTICAL

Use 1. Exhortation. Since both the sacred and secular dimensions of man’s post over this Garden have at their core keeping or guarding that terrain, it is simply wicked—it is a dereliction of duty and it is dishonoring to God—for man to surrender that terrain to the enemy of God, that is the devil and his servants. Whether in church or state (the sacred or the secular), when man surrenders to the violence of the intruder, he is not acting as a Christian. That is a distortion of Christ-like self-sacrifice for the life of others, and it perversely turns it inside-out into a sacrifice of that terrain for one’s own comfort. There was the case of the Babylonian spies playing the role of guests to the King of Judah.

“And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them” (Isa. 39:2).

The prophet Isaiah called him on it. And then he said,

“Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the LORD. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’ Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, ‘The word of the LORD that you have spoken is good.’ For he thought, ‘There will be peace and security in my days’ (Isa. 39:6-8).

On that terrain are souls in the sanctuary and bodies in the neighborhood. Adam was made king and priest of Eden to protect both. And every man that God ever made was made to use his strength to defend those weaker, those placed on his local terrain.

Use 2. Correction. Honest cultivation of one’s property is not violence. Working together, forming associations with, trading with, setting up the basic needs of life in one’s own local terrain is not violence against others outside! That doesn’t sound very revolutionary, does it? Before this generation, it was the attack on property, and the liberty to work it and keep it—that was the revolutionary view. We called that COMMUNISM—informed by Marx that property was theft. Now, because the past few generations have essentially become functionally statist and globalist in their thinking, the idea of living as God intended—the full life of man, locally, being a steward of that ground right in front of you, and interacting in every area of life with those people in one’s own community, protecting against violent forces threatening that locale—that will increasingly be called violence. Upside-down and inside-out! Perverse!

“Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land … Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure, and the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude will go down … Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isa. 5:8, 14, 20).

In these ways: Woe unto those who call the image of God in productive caring for the real people right in front of you—Woe unto those who call that VIOLENCE and who think of that real-life image of God as an evil that needs to be eradicated.

Use 3. Consolation. Just as God “hand-crafted” this first man, so He has to you. And as God hand-picked and placed Adam in that literal locale of Eden, so He has placed you on a stage of glory. Now put those together. Your exact DNA and your exact parents and your exact children and your exact skill-set and your exact circumstance, are all the staging ground for His glory. Listen to the Scriptures on His hand-crafting you—You say, “I wasn’t in the dust!” Ah, but in the womb—

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-14).

Now what about places and people? Does the Bible say that of you too?

“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26).

Finally, even about each minute circumstance, every trial as much as every joy. 

“You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me” (Ps. 139:3-5).

Again, we cannot get started here by going back to Adam. There is no “factory reset.” But we are obligated to glorify God. So we don’t go back to Adam; we do go through Christ. Not only does “he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14); but gives us something better than a factory reset. He gives us a new ground to stand on—that is, His own righteous performance in our place.

_______________________

1. A fragment of the word is used in a similar, common way in Numbers 24:6, Isaiah 1:30, and Jeremiah 29:5.

2. Turretin, Institutes, I.8.7.

3. Morris, The Genesis Record, 89; Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 87.

4. Morris, The Genesis Record, 87.

5. Murray points to this expression as proving the uniqueness of man over the lower animals. First, the divine action of inbreathing is “from without and cannot be interpreted as evolution of potencies resident in ‘dust from the ground.’” Second, even in the clause “the man became a living creature,” we have evidence. Being a living creature makes man no different than a beast, but that he “became,” at this point, shows that this “inbreathing was not an action superimposed upon an already existing animate being.” Third, the term “Man” was already defined by 1:26 as God’s image and never assigned to any previous creature, after which man was of the same “kind,” as we see with other life forms in Chapter 1 (Collected Writings, II:7-8).

6. This is not to say that this text resolves the debate between creationism and traducianism in favor of the former. It does not factor in how sin is passed down, for example. It is only to say that there is at least a divinely creative element in the case of each human being.

7. Thomas Cartwright, A Treatise of Christian Religion (Sacra Press, 2024), 40.

8. Cartwright, A Treatise of Christian Religion, 40.

9. Murray comments, “‘Dust from the ground’ informs us that matter, previously created by God and taken from the earth, entered into the composition of man’s being from the outset. When Adam was made in accordance with the design and resolve of Genesis 1:26 it was not by simple fiat, by what has been called creatio ex nihilo. In making man, the word of God, and the action corresponding to it, operated upon existing substance, and this substance of material character was subjected to formative action on God’s part, action prior to any other action” (Collected Writings, II:6).

10. Ecclesiastes 5:8

11. Exodus 20:17.

12. Kidner, Genesis, 66.

13. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 85.

14. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 85.

15. This trio of words were used by John Piper, What’s the Difference? (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990) to describe the basic attributes of the masculine orientation. Over and above complementarianism, we affirm a natural law truth of patriarchy, in which “lead, provide, protect,” is not merely the result of either an arbitrary non-natural role, nor a merely biological derivative. The masculine attributes are first psychological, and second biological, so that they can, third, be social without exception.