In a postlapsarian world, it is difficult to imagine life in the Garden. First, much of what we hear on life in the Garden is laden with misinformation and/or oral tradition within hermeneutic communities. Take, for example, the commonly held idea that Adam daily walked with God in the cool of the day. Nowhere does scripture substantiate such a claim, but we have come to view this idea as sacrosanct. Of course, this also lends to the next unsubstantiated claim that likely gave rise to the first; the voice of God walking in the Garden in a literal sense.
Many are quick to express a mystical sense of wonder when discussing this phenomenon of a “voice walking” whereas others will utilize key words from this phrase to imply or suggest the aforementioned “daily walk” belief or other varied ideas. I am sure that many of these beliefs stem from the reading of commentaries in which unsubstantiated opinions on the verse are mirrored across some of even the most prestigious of commentators.
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, one of the more prestigious and highly regarded among commentaries, weighs in on Genesis 3:8 by saying: “such walks would take place in the early evening (the cooler time of day) rather than ‘in the heat of the day’” [1] This unfounded opinion staggers me, especially when contrasted with the notion of the heat of the day. Somehow, the NICOT commentator has divined some sense of the local weather from his reading of Genesis 3:8?
The New American Commentary does an even greater injustice to the text than that of NICOT in that it says: “the anthropomorphic description of God “walking” (mithallēk) in the garden suggests the enjoyment of fellowship between him and our first parents.” [2] Again, the commentator has drawn an incredible conclusion into the phrase about the “voice of God walking in the cool of the day.” To imply that mithallēk suggests such a notion is nothing short of exegetical gymnastics based on an obvious presupposition. Mithallēk can also mean “to go” which I will cover in a bit. First, let’s consider the premise of God walking in the Garden.
A Walking God
As an anthropomorphic expression, the idea of God walking is easily substantiated in scripture (cf. Lev. 26:13; Deut. 23:14). Suggestions could be made of these two texts, but the conclusions would not be as pretty, especially that of Deut. 23:14 whose context includes that of excrement being removed from the camp due to God’s “walking in the midst of the camp.” Yes, I have heard men suggest some rather foolish and humorous interpretations of this text. Instead of such foolish interpretations, an easier one is available in that, the camp of Israel—whose central facet was the Tabernacle—is a holy place wherewith God sits (as it were an earthly throne) upon the Mercy Seat between the cherubim (cf. Ps. 80:1; 99:1). The “walking” of God within the camp thus captures the idea of a king ruling amongst His people (Ex. 25:22).
Of course, when trying to nail down the idea of God strolling through the Garden at some self-appointed time of the day, many have pointed to other instances in scripture where such walking is described such as, the “sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees” (II Samuel 5:24), the “sound of her feet” (I Kings 14:6), and the “sound of his master’s feet behind him” (II Kings 6:32). However, as Cassuto—a biblical and Semitic scholar—explains, “it is precisely these verses that rule out this interpretation here, since in all these instances the world qol [sound] is expressly followed by the word for feet or marching, that is, in verses of this kind qol is not used by itself without an accompanying explanation of the nature of the sound referred to in the passage.” [3] (bold emphasis mine).
As it relates to Genesis 3:8, we are not told that “God walked in the Garden,” but instead the phrase, “the voice of God walking in the cool of the day.” Contextually we are not facing the aforementioned anthropomorphic expression that envisions God amongst His people nor the qualifying use of qol as described by Cassuto. Instead, we are dealing with the sound of God moving through the garden which, as Adam later expresses, “I heard thy qol [sound; voice] in the garden” (Gen. 3:10). The invisible Spirit of God (Ruah Elohim) was heard in the wind of the day. As one will see, there is far more scriptural evidence to support the idea of the sound of God moving in the wind than there is the idea of God literally walking in the Garden at some self-appointed time of the day. That is not to say that God did not regularly visit in some theophanic sense—as with other instances in scripture—but to vehemently make the case for the literal sense of daily walks through the Garden is suggestive and theoretical.
The Rûaḥ ʾElōhîm
There are almost 400 times in the OT that [rûaḥ] occurs, and when contrasted to contemporary literature of the Ancient Near East, “has a unique development of its lexical range of meaning.” [4] Across the broad spectrum of lexical meanings, [rûaḥ] is primarily translated as wind, breath, and spirit. Of these three, wind seems to be the “customary meaning of the Hebrew word when unaccompanied by any explanatory modifier.” [5] Yet, as Frankel & Teutsch discuss, many times [rûaḥ] is used as a symbolism for “God’s agency in the natural world” [6] Often, in the instances where [rûaḥ]as wind seems to be interchangeable with[rûaḥ]as the Spirit of God, the idea of power and invincibility is intended.
When confronted by the rûaḥ ʾelōhîm [spirit of God] of Genesis 1:2, one is immediately drawn to the dynamic moving associated with the Spirit’s introduction. The invisible, yet powerful hovering of the Spirit of God with the tōhû wābōhû [lifeless and unproductive]condition of the earth lends toward the immediate potential of radical transformation. The connotations of the rûaḥ ʾelōhîm and its role in creation is captured vividly by Robert Hubbard in that, if human eyes/ears were watching/hearing the events of Genesis 1:2:
…they might see the effects of its silent movement across the waters…. the rûaḥ soaring like an eagle, then in its wake flow gentle ripples or majestic waves rolling across the deep…. they might hear its rustle or rumble, audible like the wind….in sum, visible signs and audible sounds from an invisible source attest the on-site presence of the mysterious rûaḥ in Genesis 1:2. [7] (bold emphasis mine)
The involvement and interaction of God with humanity, as captured by the idea of air in motion, continues to be a primary element throughout the OT. When God manifests himself to Ezekiel, it is out of a whirlwind [rûaḥ] coming out of the north (Ezek. 1:4). Again, as captured in David’s song of thanksgiving (2 Sam. 22), God is said to have been perceived as riding on a cherub upon the “wings of the wind [rûaḥ]” (v. 11). In each of these instances, wind is utilized as a theophanic element to describe the appearing of God to man and, as many have concluded, plays an important role in the new birth experience in the New Testament.
This important understanding lends further support to the idea of what Adam and Even experienced in the Garden following their disobedience. It was in the wind [rûaḥ] of the day that fallen humanity heard the sound—translated as voice in many translations—of God moving in the Garden. The word “walking,” as already discussed can also mean “to go,” thus providing a clearer understanding of the nature of the sound they were hearing. The movement of the invisible God is captured within the metaphoric idea of air in motion; the effect and sound of such movement evident to the senses of Adam and Eve (see also Psalm 29:3-9).
Conclusion
This sense of God in motion, accompanied by a sound, is captured in Ezekiel 43:2: “and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east. And the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory” (ESV). Again, in 1:24, “and they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army…” (ESV). Of course, the KJV translates qol [sound] as “voice” but contextually, just as in Genesis 3:8, sound is a more accurate translation of qol (see also Rev. 14:2;19:6 where φωνή [phōnē] is used interchangeably in certain translations as voice/sound). In certain contexts, both sound and voice are evidently appropriate in translation.
[1] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 192.
[2] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 239.
[3] Cassuto, Umerto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah, Part 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961), 323.
[4] Hildebrandt, W., An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody, MASS.: Hendrickson Press, Hebrew University, 1995), 5.
[5] Schoemaker, W.R., The Use of Ruah in the Old Testament and of Pneuma in the New Testament (Menominee, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1904), 14.
[6] Frankel, E., & Teutsch, B.P., The Encyclopedia of Jewish Symbols (Northvale, N.J: J. Aronson, 1992), 259, wind.
[7] Hubbard, R.L, The Spirit and Creation. In D. Firth & P. Wegner (Eds.), Presence, Power, and Promise. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2011), 84.