FROM EDEN TO THE NEW JERUSALEM: AN INTRODUCTION TO

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

__________________

A Book Review
Presented to
Dr. Brian Vickers
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 22100

__________________

by
Justus Paul Kim
jkim979@students.sbts.edu
September 13, 2018
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology.
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008.

Introduction
Those who have heard the term “meta-narrative” in a pastor’s sermon or mentioned in
passing by a theologically-nerdy friend and have thought, “meta-what now?” may find T.
Desmond Alexander’s From Eden to the New Jerusalem a helpful introduction to the topic.
Pastors and theology nerds may, in turn, find this book an antidote of sorts for the blank stares
(and perhaps some eye rolls) that come their way when biblical theology makes its way into their
conversations. In this book, Alexander provides “broad brush strokes” designed to show the
general shape and pattern of the biblical story from Genesis to Revelation (11). Though slightly
more academic than the average Christian book, especially with its generous use of footnotes,
From Eden to the New Jerusalem still provides enough repetition and summary to keep it
accessible to most readers.
Alexander currently serves as a senior lecturer in biblical studies at Union Theological
Seminary, Belfast. He previously taught courses in Semitic Studies at the Queen’s University of
Belfast. Moreover, he is Chairman of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological

Research and is the author of The City of God and the Goal of Creation and From Paradise to
the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch, among other titles.

Summary
Alexander’s purpose in this book is quite straightforward: to trace the meta-story, or
the overarching story, of the seemingly disparate and perhaps incongruous narratives written in
the sixty-six books of the Bible. He believes that the Bible, though “[p]roduced over many
centuries” and “amazingly diverse in terms of genre, authorship and even language,”
nevertheless captures a unified story that answers “life’s biggest questions: (1) Why was the

1
earth created? (2) What is the reason for human existence?” (10). The answer, in short, is that
God created the earth as a dwelling place to live with the humanity that he created in his own
image. The substance inside the pages of this book is Alexander’s argument and evidence.
Alexander begins, somewhat unconventionally, at the end rather than at the beginning,
noting the vision of a new heaven and a new earth as the culmination of a lengthy and circuitous
(yet unified) process by which God recreates his earthly dwelling place after the fall of Adam. In
chapter 2, Alexander points to a parallel between the beginning and the end, namely the Garden
of Eden and the New Jerusalem, wherein the Garden is not just a garden, but a holy garden-city,
and New Jerusalem not only a city, but an arboreal temple-city. This parallel theme is not
coincidental, Alexander argues, but compelling evidence of God’s purpose to dwell with his
creation, man’s sin and rebellion notwithstanding. Thus, Alexander highlights a meaningful
commonality and connection – that each possesses garden, temple, and city elements – that
might otherwise be lost on the average Christian.
Alexander continues in this chapter to outline the overarching story of God’s dwelling on
the earth with humanity, from the Garden of Eden to the tabernacle (during the days of Moses) to
the Jerusalem temple (during the days of Solomon and the subsequent kings) to the church
(during the days of the apostles to the present) and finally to the New Jerusalem at Christ’s
second coming. These different dwelling places, according to Alexander, are the successive

adjustments God makes as he deals constantly with a wayward and rebellious people (26). The
point in tracing the common traits in these dwelling places is that God does not give up on his
creation, but continues resolutely to bring about his ultimate end: an everlasting and
indestructible dwelling place with his people (74).
While the aforementioned chapter gives the reader the skeleton, each successive chapter
adds meat to the bones. These latter chapters deal with various themes along this progression and
help to clarify, and bring meaning to, the elements in the storyline. For instance, in the next
chapter, Alexander expounds on the priestly role of Adam and Eve and how that role is conferred
(in a different yet similar form) to Abraham through a covenant relationship, and then to Israel as

2
the chosen people of God, and finally to the church as the royal priesthood of God (76). Other
themes include Satan’s status as the ruler of this world and the one to be defeated in the end, the
role of Christ in purification and sanctification, and the transformation and restoration of sinful
and corrupted people, ecology, and society.
Finally, the book ends where the story ends, with a vision of New Jerusalem juxtaposed
with its counterpart, Babylon. Like a bride and a prostitute, New Jerusalem and Babylon,
respectively, symbolize whom God will choose for himself and whom he will reject. Only in the
New Jerusalem will God abide with His people, the culmination and final fulfillment of His great
and glorious story, and in “holiness, wholeness, and love” they will live in the presence of God
for all time (187).

Critical Evaluation
As mentioned above, Alexander’s purpose is to introduce and outline the meta-story of
the Bible. He makes his qualifications known at the outset. He says himself that this “brief
study” is not intended “to be exhaustive, but rather indicative,” and supplies the interested reader
with a myriad of references in the footnotes for further study (11). At the same time, he does not
assume the reader to be a Christian or Christian minister, or even to have more than a
rudimentary knowledge of the Bible. In addition, his purpose is not overtly or primarily practical,
as are some other works on this topic. He does, however, attempt to make points of application,

even though by his own admission they are “suggestive rather than comprehensive” (12). Given
these parameters and caveats, he accomplishes, for the most part, what he sets out to do.
Additionally, the strengths of this book lie in the fact that Alexander believes that Scripture
interprets Scripture, and thus, he grounds his arguments therein. The weaknesses of this book lie
in the fact that Alexander does not make clear his hermeneutical system of interpretation, which
leads to loose language, some of which leaves the reader to scratch his head in wonder.
First, we look at the positives. Simply put, the strength of this book finds its basis in
Alexander’s reliance on Scripture to make his case. Alexander prefaces his main argument,

3
which is discussed in detail later, with an explicit acknowledgement that Scripture interprets
Scripture (10). With this presupposition, those of every Bible-believing camp can bellow a hearty
“Amen!” The rest of this book, with its copious references to Scripture highlighted in both the
footnotes and the index at the end, reflect an understanding that the efficacy of his argument
must depend firmly and primarily on the Scriptures itself. Hence, readers will find that rare is the
page that is absent a footnote, parenthetical reference, or block quotation of Scripture in his
argumentation. It should be noted, also, that Alexander engages an extensive amount of other
scholarship, synthesizing other scholars’ perspectives with which he agrees, as though to say that
he is not the only one who makes these arguments, while also giving attention to points of
disagreement, albeit mostly in the footnotes. Hence, the case must be made that Alexander’s
arguments reflect a painstaking use of biblical and secondary texts, and any serious refutation of
his assertions must deal primarily with his interpretation of those texts. Meaning, it simply will
not suffice to claim that Alexander’s arguments are merely matters of personal opinion.
These two strengths – that Scripture interprets Scripture and that he rests his case on
the Scriptures – lend credence to Alexander’s main claim that the elements of “garden,”
“temple,” and “city” are present in each epoch from the Garden to New Jerusalem. In other
words, Alexander presents convincingly that these elements are not merely coincidental, but
utterly intentional and reflect God’s desire and plan to dwell with man. This claim is especially

important because these parallels may not be readily noticeable, and may even be novel, to
Christians who have, perhaps, read the Scriptures in piecemeal fashion or put little thought into
the ways in which the Old Testament connects with the New Testament. In sum, Alexander
cogently strings together a unified story that helps the reader make better sense of both the
contours of the Scriptures and, more importantly, the end goal of God’s plan outlined therein.
Second, we look at the negatives. The helpfulness of the garden temple-city
parallelism notwithstanding, this book falls flat, first, in its unwillingness, purposeful or not, to
address the elephant in the “biblical theology” room: the covenantal-dispensational divide. There
is no explicit stance made either way. If anything, it can be inferred from some phrases like “the

4
Jerusalem temple is replaced by the church [emphasis mine]” that Alexander espouses a
covenantal hermeneutic (61). This is not a particularly helpful way to phrase, however, it if he
wants to guard against the oft-repeated criticism made by dispensationalists that covenantal
theology is “replacement” theology, and thus, unbiblical. Moreover, his rather terse treatment of
the three millennial views at the end of chapter 4 evinces a glaring reluctance on his part to
explicate his stance on the issue. Granted, he may have thought the issue outside the purview of
his thesis, which would only beg the response, “Then why mention anything at all?” The five
short paragraphs he devotes to delineating the differences among the three millennial views
(without advocating one particular view over the others) is deficient and serves little function in
the text. Rather, it stands out as an awkward digression of sorts and is conspicuous for the wrong
reasons. It may have been better to leave that discussion in the footnotes.
Second, his reticence also extends to the question of “Why?” It is probably not
Alexander’s goal to answer this question (he is chiefly concerned with answering the question
“How?”), but any rendering of a biblical timeline necessarily begs the question, “Why?” and an
answer would be helpful. For instance, Alexander states, “While the post-exilic reconstruction of
the temple and the rebuilding of the city walls are evidence that God is still determined to
complete his creation project, further measures are necessary in order for this to be achieved
[emphasis added]” (60). Why? Not only is there no answer in this book, Alexander does not even

pose the question. He does not ask why a tabernacle is jettisoned for a temple, for instance, or
why that temple is later destroyed and a church built. But why God would choose to work this
way and why he would allow for this succession of alterations in his “blueprint” are questions
that naturally spring forth from such a discussion. Unfortunately, this book does not ask or
answer them.
Third, Alexander’s use of terms like “endanger” and “jeopardize” when speaking of
man’s sinful actions that lead to God “altering” the blueprint is unhelpful and perplexing (74). It
is particularly vexing in light of the fact that Alexander seems to take God’s sovereignty as a
given. How a sovereign God’s blueprint can be “jeopardized” seems a contradiction in terms.

5
Perhaps a discussion on the differences between God’s sovereign will and revealed will would
have been profitable. It would have certainly helped the reader better understand the following
sentences: “Surely, by his very nature God is King of kings and Lord of lords. However, the
biblical meta-story indicates the God’s sovereignty does not extend unchallenged over the
present earth” (75) Apportioning some real estate in this book to addressing the matter of God’s
sovereignty and man’s responsibility would have helped in clarifying some of the questions that
may have arisen in the minds of the readers at various junctures in the book.

Conclusion
In sum, Alexander’s book is a worthwhile read given its intentions. He states a strong
case for the garden-temple-city theme throughout the epochs, a framework that can be helpful for
anyone reading through the Bible (e.g. the layman, the bible study leader, the youth group
member, and so on). Alexander’s treatment of the temple motif in chapter 2 and human
vicegerency in chapter 3 has been particularly informative for me. Moreover, his explication of
Christ’s atonement, purification, and sanctification in chapter 5 is a great reminder of solid
biblical truth. At the same time, because his strokes are so broad and his application so sparse,
and because he does not engage the disagreements in biblical theology that continue to be
debated in other books (covenant v. dispensational v. progressive dispensational, etc.), this book
will not be especially helpful for the person who desires a more practical approach to biblical

theology or someone who is looking for a defense of any or all of the aforementioned
hermeneutical systems. Nevertheless, it is a worthy introduction, and one that, with some
caveats, I would recommend.