Adam and Eve are not called priests in Genesis. In fact, the first mention of a priest doesn't come up until Genesis 14:18 with the mysterious figure of Melchizedek. The only other priests mentioned in the first book are the priests of Egypt in the Joseph narrative (including naming his father-in-law). Still, there is much reason to think of the priesthood when we turn our minds to our first parents. For one thing, Genesis 1 is a cosmic temple building text (see The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton). So right from the beginning, we have sacred space in mind. And if there is sacred space, then there must be those who are to serve within sacred space. So that's gotta be the humans.
True, they (we) are actually called the tselem--or idols--of the cosmic temple in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2, the creation of Adam out of dust in which the breath of God is breathed should bring this to mind specifically, as well. But so is the priest described as an idol himself. From the colorful priestly garments embellished with gold to the gems on the ephod, the priest is the living tselem of the Israelite sanctuary.
Still, is this enough to make the connection of Adam and Eve as priests? Many scholars believe so, and this is born out by the words used to describe the work of Adam and Eve in the garden. This, combined with their mandate to rule over creation, gives us the complete view of the royal priest.
From the book, The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One:
The service of the Levitical priests was to serve and guard the house of God from what is unclean or profane (Num. 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 18:5–6; 1 Chron. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14). The Hebrew words for serve and guard (‘abad and shamar) are the same as used to describe the expectation of Adam when placed in the garden, translated in English Bibles as variations of “work and keep.”17 The role of Adam (and by extension, Eve) thus carries a priestly function. Allowing the serpent a place in the garden—something unholy and profane—represented a failure to fulfill their priestly duty, ultimately leading to their ejection and replacement by cherubim.
As with humanity in general, God did not completely reject Adam and Eve for their sin. He made provisions for their redemption and continued service. The clothing God gave to Adam and Eve (kotnot, “tunics”) employs the same terminology used for priestly garments (Exod. 29:5, 8; 40:14; Lev. 8:13; 16:4), provided to set them apart and to cover their nakedness (Exod. 20:26).
Moreover, a day was foretold when the promised Messiah would combine the roles of king and high priest in the context of the temple. Zechariah 6:9–15 speaks of placing a crown on the head of the high priest, and looks forward to the coming of the chosen one of God. “It is he who shall build the temple of Yahweh and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them” (v. 13).
17 Scholars debate whether the verbs (‘abad, “work, serve”; shamar, “keep, guard”) in the garden focuses more on the agricultural (“work and keep”) or religious (“serve and guard”). In the context of Gen. 1–2, the focus may be argued to be both secular and sacred.Gregg Davidson and Kenneth J. Turner, The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One: A Multi-Layered Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2021), 109.
The description of the clothing of Adam and Eve should attain prominence in our minds as to their role. But if so, why were they at first naked? Jon Garvey gives a summary of the explanation that has been proposed by scholar G.K. Beale:
There is clearly much of figurative importance in the innocent nakedness of Adam and Eve, especially given the disapproval of nudity in the Hebrew culture compared to, say, the Greek. Greg Beale, thinking in terms of biblical theology, has an interesting discussion on their nakedness in which he envisages it, like their lack of wisdom, as a probationary state before their intended acquisition of “priestly” clothing of divine righteousness. The attempt to clothe themselves,20 followed in due course by the removal of these inadequate scraps and their gracious replacement with divinely wrought skin garments21 he compares to the clothing metaphors of new birth used by Paul in more than one passage.22
20 Gen 3:7.
21 Gen 3:21.
22 Beale, New Testament, 452–55.
Jon Garvey, The Generations of Heaven and Earth: Adam, the Ancient World, and Biblical Theology (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2020), 18–19.
This explanation fits with the idea that the garden was a place where maturation according to God's will was to take place; rather than waiting on that, the fruit was taken which sped up this process in a way that was counter to God's will. However, in spite of our waywardness, God's purposes are still accomplished. Hallelujah!
Check out more in this episode of Genesis Marks the Spot:
Beyond Word Studies: An Introduction to Priests - Episode 038
