The nominal κῆπος occurs three times in John 18-20 (18:1, 26; 19:41). The inclusion of κῆπος in the passion and resurrection narrative is unique to the Fourth Gospel (FG). Unlike the Synoptics, the FG explicitly mentions that the arrest, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ had taken place in a garden (κῆπος, 18:1, 26;19:41). Johannine scholars like Craig Keener and C.K. Barrett have warned against linking the Johannine garden (κῆπος) to the primal garden (MT גּן, Gen 2:8-9), which is rendered in the LXX as παράδεισος. Barrett asserts that if the author wanted to allude to the garden of Eden, he would have used παράδεισος. The same reservation can be observed in Raymond Brown’s commentary on John. He said that the linguistic difference (LXX’s παράδεισος and the FG’s κῆπος) makes the “symbolic exegesis” unwarranted. Aside from the lexical incongruity, Keener asserts that the FG does not have an “explicit Adam Christology.” Does κῆπος have a biblical-theological significance in the passion and resurrection account of the FG?
In this paper, I argue that John’s recurrent use of κῆπος evokes images that are reminiscent of the archetypal sanctuary in Genesis 1-3. A semantic analysis of κῆπος reveals that in the LXX, the Hebrew גּן is rendered either by παράδεισος (Gen. 2:8-9; Ezek. 31:8) or κῆπος (Ezek. 36:35). Similarly, other Jewish texts, as well as the Greek texts by Aquila and Theodotion, reflect the interchangeable use of παράδεισος and κῆπος. Patristic Fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria see the Johannine garden as typifying the paradise. Contemporary New Testament scholars like Francis Moloney, Edward Klink III, and Brandon Crowe affirm the possible typological connection between the FG’s garden and the Edenic imagery and both are convinced that the study is worthy of further exploration. C. Alfred Briggs noted the significance of the likely connection: “(Jesus’) suffering in the first garden made it possible for the disciples to partake of the fruit of the eternal life that was on the cross. Thus, as Eden was the garden where Adam and Eve first lived and where death came into existence, so in this garden in John the process was reversed” (The Tree of Life in John’s Gospel, 125).
The analysis proceeds in several stages. Part I examines the context of John 18-20 and the use of κῆπος or the garden theme in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the LXX. Part II succinctly presents the interpretations of the Patristic Fathers of the FG’s death and resurrection account. Part III demonstrates the verbal and thematic connections between the protological garden and the FG’s Johannine garden (John 18-20). The exegetical conclusions here have far-reaching implications for the new creation theme and the possible Adamic Christology in the FG.