The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 8

In some of the ancient Near Eastern texts, a temple is built as a conclusion to cosmic creation. But typically these are distinct, though related acts. The natural association between them is that the creative acts are expressions of authority, and the temple is the place where authority will continue to be exercised. Beyond this textual and ideological association, we can see that texts link creation and temple building by noting the absence of temples along with the absence of cosmic order as they recount the acts of creation. Thus the absence of a temple was sometimes part of the description of the precosmic condition. This is clearest in the preamble to a prayer that concerns the founding of Eridu:

No holy house, no house of the gods, had been built in a pure place;

No reed had come forth, no tree had been created;

No brick had been laid, no brickmold had been created;

No house had been built, no city had been created;

No city had been built, no settlement had been founded;

Nippur had not been built, Ekur had not been created;

Uruk had not been built, Eanna had not been created;

The depths had not been built, Eridu had not been created;

No holy house, no house of the gods, no dwelling for them had been created.

All the world was sea,

The spring in the midst of the sea was only a channel,

Then was Eridu built, Esagila was created.

Then Marduk settles the gods into their dwelling places, creates people and animals, and sets up the Tigris and Euphrates.

In a prayer to dedicate the foundation brick of a temple it is obvious that the cosmos and temple were conceived together and thus are virtually simultaneous in their origins.

When Anu, Enlil, and Ea had a (first) idea of heaven and earth,

They found a wise means of providing support of the gods:

They prepared, in the land, a pleasant dwelling,

And the gods were installed (?) in this dwelling:

Their principal temple.

This close connection between cosmic origins and temple building reinforces the idea across the ancient Near East that the temples were considered primordial and that cosmic origins at times were defined in terms of a temple element. It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.

We can draw the connection between temple and cosmos more tightly when we observe that temples in the ancient world were considered symbols of the cosmos. The biblical text as well as the literature of the ancient Near East makes this clear. Ancient Near Eastern evidence comes from a variety of cultures and sources. First, temples had cosmic descriptions in the ancient world. The earliest example is in the Sumerian Temple Hymn of Kes, one of the oldest pieces of literature known.

House Keš, platform of the Land, important fierce bull! Growing as high as the hills, embracing the heavens, Growing as high as E-kur, lifting its head among the mountains! Rooted in the Abzu, verdant like the mountains!

The Sumerian text of Gudea’s construction of a temple shows the temple serving a cosmic function. Toward the end of Cylinder B, the god Ningirsu, speaking to Gudea, suggests that it is the temple that separates heaven and earth, thus associating it with that most primordial act of creation:

[Gu]dea, you were building my [house] for me,

And were having [the offices] performed to perfection [for me],

You had [my house] shine for me

Like Utu in [heaven’s midst],

Separating. Like a lofty foothill range,

Heaven from earth.

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 Esharra (“House of the Cosmos”) and Etemenanki (“House of the Foundation Platform Between Heaven and Earth”).

In Egypt temples were regarded as having been built where the primeval hillock of land first emerged from the cosmic waters.

The temple recalled a mythical place, the primeval mound. It stood on the first soil that emerged from the primeval waters, on which the creator god stood to begin his work of creation. Through a long chain of ongoing renewals, the present temple was the direct descendant of the original sanctuary that the creator god himself had erected on the primeval mound. An origin myth connecting the structure with creation is associated with each of the larger late temples.

Both Sumerian and Egyptian texts identify the temple as the place from which the sun rises: “Your interior is where the sun rises, endowed with wide-spreading plenty.” The Egyptian temples served as models of the cosmos in which the floor represented the earth and the ceiling represented the sky. Columns and wall decorations represented plant life. Jan Assmann, presenting this imagery, concludes that the temple “was the world that the omnipresent god filled to its limits.” Indeed, the temple is, for all intents and purposes, the cosmos.9 This interrelationship makes it possible for the temple to be the center from which order in the cosmos is maintained.

In the biblical text the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos. This connection was explicitly recognized as early as the second century a.d. in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who says of the tabernacle:

“every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe.”

In the outer courtyard were representations of various aspects of cosmic geography. Most important are the

water basin

, which 1 Kings 7:23–26 designates “sea,” and the

bronze pillars

, described in 1 Kings 7:15–22, which perhaps represented the pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos. From the courtyard, which contained the elements outside the organized cosmos (cosmic waters and pillars of the earth), one would move into the organized cosmos as he entered the antechamber. Here were the

Menorah, the Table of Bread and the incense altar.

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 calling them sun and moon). As the Menorah represented the light provided by God, the

“Bread of the Presence”

God tells them not to do certain things that the ancient Near Eastern rituals—the feeding of the gods, Exodus “You shall not offer unauthorized incense on it or a burnt offering or a grain offering; you shall not pour a drink offering on it”] prohibiting libations on the inner altar

something as seemingly ordinary as a few loaves of bread in the Holy Place turn out to be very pregnant with meaning. There’s a distinction and a distancing of Yahweh (the God of Israel) from other ancient Near Eastern gods by virtue of what is done and not done with the bread and with the table and with the vessels and utensils and so forth—with these objects. It conveys the notion that Yahweh is self-sustaining and he continues as the Creator and the original provider. He continues to provide sustenance of the creation and for his people—independent of them. There is no dependence. So all of it is designed to make a theological statement. It’s theological messaging.

(Ex 25:30) represented food provided by God. The

altar of incense

provided a sweet-smelling cloud across the face of the veil that separated the two chambers. If we transpose from the horizontal axis to the vertical, the veil separated the earthly sphere, with its functions, from the heavenly sphere, where God dwells. This latter was represented in the holy of holies, where the footstool of the throne of God (the ark) was placed. Thus the veil served the same symbolic function as the firmament. To review then, the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representations of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth—the place of God’s presence from the place of human habitation.

Scholars have also recognized that the temple and tabernacle contain a lot of imagery from the Garden of Eden. They note that gardens commonly adjoined sacred space in the ancient world. Furthermore the imagery of fertile waters flowing from the presence of the deity to bring abundance to the earth is a well-known image.

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. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary.

So the waters flowing through the garden in Genesis 2 are paralleled by the waters flowing from the temple in Ezekiel 47:1–12 (cf. Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1–2). This is one of the most common images in the iconography of the ancient world. Consequently we may conclude that the Garden of Eden was sacred space and the temple/tabernacle contained imagery of the garden and the cosmos. All the ideas are interlinked. The temple is a microcosm, and Eden is represented in the antechamber that serves as sacred space adjoining the Presence of God as an archetypal sanctuary.

From the idea that the temple was considered a mini cosmos, it is easy to move to the idea that the cosmos could be viewed as a temple. This is more difficult to document in the ancient world because of the polytheistic nature of their religion. If the whole cosmos were viewed as a single temple, which god would it belong to? Where would temples of the other gods be? Nevertheless it can still be affirmed that creation texts can and do follow the model of temple-building texts, in this way at least likening the cosmos to a temple.

In the Old Testament, polytheism would not interfere with the association of cosmos and temple, and indeed the connection is made. Isaiah 66:1–2 is the clearest text.

This is what the Lord says:

“Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

Where is the house you will build for me?

Where will my resting place be?

Has not my hand made all these things,

and so they came into being?”

declares the Lord.

Here we can see the elements of a cosmos-sized temple, a connection between temple and rest, and a connection between creation and temple. This in itself is sufficient to see that the cosmos can be viewed as a temple. That is precisely what we are proposing as the premise of Genesis 1: that it should be understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. Other passages in the Old Testament that suggest the cosmos be viewed as a temple include 1 Kings 8:27, where in his prayer dedicating the temple, Solomon says, “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple that I have built?” In another, Isaiah 6:3, the seraphim chant, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is full of his glory.” The “glory” that the earth is full of is the same as that which comes and takes up residence in the holy of holies in Exodus 40:34.

This chapter has given evidence for the following:

1. In the Bible and in the ancient Near East the temple is viewed as a microcosm.

2. The temple is designed with the imagery of the cosmos.

3. The temple is related to the functions of the cosmos.

4. The creation of the temple is parallel to the creation of the cosmos.

5. In the Bible the cosmos can be viewed as a temple.

When this information is combined with the discoveries of the last chapter—that deity rests in a temple, and that therefore Genesis 1 would be viewed as a temple text—we gain a different perspective on the nature of the Genesis creation account. Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God’s presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is theocentric, with God’s presence serving as the defining element of existence. This represents a change that has taken place over the seven days. Prior to day one, God’s spirit was active over the nonfunctional cosmos; God was involved but had not yet taken up his residence. The establishment of the functional cosmic temple is effectuated by God taking up his residence on day seven. This gives us a before/after view of God’s role.

Technical Support

Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 1992.

———. “Yhwh’s Exalted House—Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, pp. 63–110. Edited by J. Day. New York: T & T Clark, 2005.

Levenson, Jon. “The Temple and the World,” Journal of Religion 64 (1984): 275–98.

———. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Lundquist, J. “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology.” In The Quest for the Kingdom of God, pp. 205–19. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1.1–2.3.” In Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor, pp. 501–12. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981.

Wenham, Gordon J. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” In I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, edited by R. S. Hess and D. Toshio Tsumura, pp. 399–404. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Reprinted from Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the Bible, pp. 19–25. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.[1]

[1] Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (pp. 77–85). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Related Media

Related Sermons