The Location of
Paradise
Part Four:
Theological
Structure of Paradise
“On the summit of Mount Paradise
stood the Tree of Life, representing the divine presence, or the Holy of
Holies, an area Adam and Eve were not allowed to enter ….
The Tree of Knowledge marked
the demarcation line (analogous to the veil in the sanctuary …) to the next
level, the slopes of the mountain.
The lower slopes, finally,
indicate the realm where the animals lived.
Along the foothills is the fence,
produced by the cherub with the revolving sword …”.
Matthias Henze writes of the
Theological Structure of Paradise according to the interpretation of it by St.
Ephrem Syrus, a Christian
theologian, poet, hymnist, and doctor of the
church (conventionally dated to c. 306 -373 AD):
Matthias Henze
THE MADNESS OF KING NEBUCHADNEZZAR
The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History
of Interpretation of Daniel 4
Brill, 1999
....
2. In the beginning God created the creation,
the fountainhead of delights;
the house which he constructed
provisions those who live therein,
for upon His gift
innumerable created beings depend;
from a single table
does He provide
every day for each creature
all things in due measure (Ps. 145:15-16).
Grant that we may acknowledge
Your grace, O Good One.
RESPONSE: Through Your grace make me worthy
of that Garden of happiness.
3. A garden full of glory,
a chaste bridal chamber,
did he give to that king
fashioned from the dust,
sanctifying and separating him
from the abode of wild animals;
for glorious was Adam
in all things –
in where he lived and what he ate,
in his radiance and dominion.
Blessed is He who elevated him above all
so that he might give thanks to the Lord of all ….
In these two stanzas Ephrem articulates his view of Paradise and its
(theological) geography.
He conceives of Paradise as a circular mountain which circumscribes the
entire world. When Cain says to Abel in the Peshitta, “Let us go the valley
…” (Gen 4:8, Syriac pqatā’, the Hebrew is lacking at this
point; the LXX reads εìς τò πεδíον, i.e., ‘to the field’), this implied
for Ephrem that their home was on a mountain. ….
The Paradise mountain is then divided further into three concentric
circles, designating three levels of sacred space. A careful reading of the
Genesis narrative provides the key to understanding the distinctive qualities
of these three degrees of holiness. In Gen 3:3 Eve reports to the serpent that
God had commanded them not to touch the tree (Hebrew lō(̒) tigg’û
bô). Hebrew nāga‘ is ambiguous and can mean either ‘to
touch’, or ‘to draw near’. The ambiguity is retained in the Peshitta (Syriac lā(’)
tetqarrbûn), yet the verb used in Syriac (qreb in the Ethpa.)
readily lends itself to Ephrem’s interpretation, which reads the command to
mean ‘to approach’, rather than ‘to touch’. The Syriac thus implies that the
divine prohibition was rather strict in nature and ruled out not only the
touching of, but even the drawing near to, the tree.
In his Commentary on Genesis, Ephrem offers the same
interpretation.
The tempter then turned his mind to the commandment of Him who had set
down the commandment, that [Adam and Eve] were not only commanded not to eat
from one single tree, but they were not even to draw near to it. The serpent
then realized that God had forewarned them abut even looking at it lest they
become entrapped by its beauty. […]
The serpent remained silent, for it perceived immediately that Eve was
about to succumb. It was not so much the serpent’s counsel that entered her ear
and provoked her to eat from the tree at it was her gaze, which she directed
toward the tree, that lured her to pluck and eat of its fruit…..
The fact that Adam and Eve were forbidden even to draw near to the tree
called for an explanation.
In his commentary, Ephrem suggest that Eve had to be guarded from gazing
at the tree simply because the tree’s beauty would have enticed her immediately
into longing for the fruit – which is, after all, what happened after the
serpent seduced her. In his Hymns on Paradise, however, Ephrem provides
a different explanation. The closest analogue for the divine prohibition not to
draw near in the Hebrew Bible is found in passages that deal with notion of
sacred space, such as the theophany at Mount Sinai, or the Divine Presence in
the Temple in Jerusalem. In either case we find a tripartite structure, i.e.,
three concentric circles which serve as demarcations of increasing degrees of
holiness organized around the divine presence in the center. God’s command to
Eve not to draw near to the tree therefore had to imply that the geography of
Paradise followed the same pattern. On the summit of Mount Paradise stood the Tree
of Life, representing the divine presence, or the Holy of Holies, an area Adam
and Eve were not allowed to enter (cf. Hymns on Paradise III.3). The
Tree of Knowledge marked the demarcation line (analogous to the veil in
the sanctuary; cf. III.13.17) to the next level, the slopes of the mountain.
The lower slopes, finally, indicate the realm where the animals lived.
Along the foothills is the fence, produced by the cherub with the
revolving sword (IV.1).
Returning to stanza three in hymn XIII, the “garden full of glory, a
chaste bridal chamber” is a common epithet for Mount Paradise in Ephrem’s
hymns. Adam, here referred to as king, was fashioned from dust, still within
the lower slopes of the mountain, an area he shared with the beasts. He names
the animals, as Ephrem reports in the previous hymn, … and is venerated by
them. Adam then discovers his need for a mate, and God creates Eve. It is at
this point that Adam and Eve are separated geographically from the animals and
enter the middle slopes of the garden. In the words of our hymn (XIII.3), God
was “sanctifying and separating him from the abode of wild animals; for
glorious was Adam in all things – in where he lived and what he ate, in his
radiance and dominion”.
Ephrem is quite specific about the distinctive qualities of Adam’s and
Eve’s new environ: no animals dwell here. The first human beings are thus
blessed with a unique domicile, food, radiance, and dominion. These last lines,
of course, anticipate the comparison with Nebuchadnezzar, who claimed many of
the same privileges.
4. The
king of Babylon resembled
Adam king
of the universe:
both rose
up against the one Lord
and were
brought low;
He made
them outlaws,
casting
them afar.
Who can
fail to weep,
seeing
that these free-born kings
preferred
slavery
and
servitude.
Blessed
is He who releases us
so that
His image might no longer be in bondage.
At this point, Ephrem introduces the key hermeneutic maneuver of the
entire hymn, the exegetical coordination of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar. The
obvious analogies between the two kings are quickly outlined. Like Adam,
Nebuchadnezzar indulged in royal splendor. Yet, both heroes proved unable to
remain content with their appointed status. Becoming increasingly greedy, they
grew arrogant before God. Even their swift punishments were analogous in that
both were expelled into an exile among the beasts.
5. David
wept for Adam,
at how he
fell
from that
royal abode
to the
abode of wild animals (Ps 49:13).
Because
he went astray through a beast
he became
like the beasts:
He ate,
together with them
as a
result of the curse,
grass and
roots,
and he
died, becoming their peer.
Blessed
is He who set him apart
from the
wild animals again.
The discussion returns to Adam, and a new text is introduced, Ps 49:13,
“Man (Hebrew ’ādām) does not abide in (Hebrew yālîn)
honor; he is like the beasts that perish.” Like the rabbis, Ephrem saw in the
third part of the biblical canon a storehouse of interpretive tools which, once
juxtaposed with a verse from the Torah, shed light on the cryptic line under
consideration. Jewish exegetes read the verse from Psalm 49 as an explanation
about how long Adam resided in Paradise: Adam was expelled from his elevated
status in less than a day’s time. ….
Ephrem chooses a different interpretation. In the Peshitta, the first
half of verse 13 reads, “Man (Syriac bārnā šā’) did not take notice
(Syriac ’etbayyan) … of his honor”, which Ephrem understands to
imply that Adam, here understood as the individual, rather than as the
collective as the Syriac would suggest, took no cognizance of his elevated
status he enjoyed at the moment when God led him (and Eve) away from the
animals to the next higher level on Mount Paradise. Adam was careless and
forfeit his privileged status.
The stanza provides us with the first glimpse into the ultimate message
Ephrem seeks to communicate through his comparison of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar,
and to which he will return at greater length in a short moment. Like Adam, we
as well are unaware of our present status. Ephrem’s goal thus is to enable us
to see what we have lost, since only by discerning this loss can we appreciate
what we are lacking and develop a desire to be restored. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment