There are two passages in the Hebrew Bible that at first glance might
seem to allude to the Fall. The first is Ezekiel 28 (verses 11–19). This
passage has been viewed as a reference to Adam in the Garden, especially since
verse 2 uses the Hebrew noun ’adam
(“a mortal” in NRSV), which is the same as the word for Adam. Verses 11–19
refer to “Eden, the garden of God” (verse 13). This passage also refers to a
“cherub” (verses 14 and 16), a figure similar to the familiar “cherubim”
(literally, “cherubs”) at the end of Genesis 3 (verse 24). The cherub in Ezekiel
28:16 “drove out” the human because of his iniquity. Initially the human had
been “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (verse
12). This human was “blameless in your ways … until iniquity [‘awlatah] was found in you” (verse 15),
and “you sinned” (verse 16). As a result, this human was “cast … from the
mountain of God” (verse 16). These details sound like the Garden of Eden story
in Genesis 2–3.
At the same time, this does not mean that Ezekiel 28 was referring
back to Genesis 2–3. In fact, Ezekiel 28 departs in significant ways from
Genesis 2–3. Ezekiel 28 does not describe the first woman. It is not about Adam
and Eve. Instead, it is about an individual male. As “the prince of Tyre,” he
is also located in historical time (Ezekiel 28:2). Unlike Genesis 2–3, the
scene in Ezekiel 28 does not take place early in the history of the world, as
verse 7 refers to the nations and verse 17 refers to kings. Ezekiel 28 also
assumes the existence of trade in verses 16 and 18 and sanctuaries in verse 18.
It is not like Adam and Eve in the Garden at the beginning of human history.
This royal figure is also “covered” in verse 13, unlike the first human couple
before their eating the fruit in Genesis 2–3.
Ezekiel 28 shows a vocabulary of sin (“iniquity was found in you,”
verse 15) and other faults (“Your heart was proud,” verse 17); contrary to many
Christian readings, these are absent from Genesis 3. Other details in Ezekiel
28 also differ from anything seen in Genesis 2–3. In Ezekiel 28, God is said to
have “cast you to the ground” in verse 17. This punishment does not happen in
Genesis 3. Thus Genesis 3 and Ezekiel 28 differ in significant respects. If one
of these passages served as a model for the other, it may have been Ezekiel 28
that informed Genesis 2–3, and not the other way around. I am going to suggest
below that Ezekiel 28 stands closer to the basic, traditional story that also
informed Genesis 2–3. In any case, Ezekiel 28 is not a reference to the Fall of
Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.
Like Ezekiel 28; Ezekiel 31 shares some features with Genesis 2–3. It,
too, differs in some notable ways. Like Ezekiel 28; Ezekiel 31 applies a
constellation of themes resembling the Fall to foreign royalty. In this
chapter, Assyria (verse 3) is compared with a tree in the “garden of God” (see
verses 8–9), explicitly located in the Lebanon (verse 3). Eden is named in
verse 16. In the end, this tree is destroyed, and “its branches have fallen” (*npl) in verse 12, along with “its fallen
trunk” (mappalah) in verse 13 (see
also verse 16, with the verb of *yrd
also in verses 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18). So this chapter might seem to refer
back to the Garden of Eden story in Genesis 2–3. Still, there are problems with
this view.
Like Ezekiel 28; Ezekiel 31 does not relate the Fall of Assyria to the
Fall of humanity’s first parents or to humanity more broadly. Like Ezekiel 28;
Ezekiel 31 does not refer to a “primeval era” like Genesis 2–3. Ezekiel 31
refers explicitly to Assyria (verse 3), and it is addressed as an object lesson
to the king of Egypt (verses 2 and 18). Only by removing such historical
referents could one reconstruct any primordial figure in these passages.
Ezekiel 31 also refers to the “uncircumcised” and those “killed by the sword”
(verse 18). In other words, the passage is set in historical time marked by the
cultural practice of circumcision and the military reality of war. This is no
Eden of primordial times.
Neither Ezekiel 28 nor Ezekiel 31 envisions an ancient Garden of Eden
as the home of the first humans. Instead, they depict the divine home to which
privileged humans over the course of history could be admitted by divine
permission. If any older myth were to be reconstructed behind these witnesses,
it would not be the Fall of Adam and Eve, but the demise of a royal or priestly
figure. I would take this point further. The scenario or type-scene about royal
figures in Ezekiel 28 and 31 looks as if it has been adapted in Genesis 2–3 to
describe the early history of God and humanity. In its adaptation, Genesis 2–3
added a number of significant features. It shows its own take on humanity,
compared with Ezekiel 28 and 31: it adds Eve to the story, as well as the idea
of Adam and Eve as the first humans. Genesis 2–3 further develops the
characters of Adam and Eve, compared with their human counterparts in Ezekiel
28 and 31. The character of God is also an important innovation. In Genesis
2–3, God is developed as a somewhat mysterious character to consider and to get
to know. Genesis 2–3 also shows a change in scenery from the Lebanon to a
location vaguely to the east, probably Mesopotamia, which is set up by the
reference to the four rivers ending with the Tigris and Euphrates (Genesis
2:10–14). Finally, where Ezekiel 28 and 31 speak of sin and fall about their
human figures, Genesis 3 does not. (Mark
S. Smith, The Genesis of Good and Evil:
The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2019, 15–17)
