"Tree of knowledge" Literal or Metaphor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

averheyen

Guest
I’ve got a good question,

In the book of Genisis, God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Was that a literal statement, or is “eating fruit from the tree of knowledge” a metaphor, and why?
 
We do not take the Book of Genesis literally but we do take it seriously.
 
averheyen said:
I’ve got a good question,

In the book of Genisis, God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Was that a literal statement, or is “eating fruit from the tree of knowledge” a metaphor, and why?
Click to expand...
Literal
 
Literal for some, metaphor for others. I personally treat it as metaphor. Good luck trying to gain any kind of consensus what that metaphor might entail.

God Bless!
 
Robert_Sock said:
Literal for some, metaphor for others. I personally treat it as metaphor. Good luck trying to gain any kind of consensus what that metaphor might entail.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Then, what was their act of disobedience?

Do you mean the first documented male excuse is actually a metaphor? ***The man replied, “*The woman whom you put here with me–she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.” Yeah, its all your fault for giving me this woman to lead me astray!
 
This should be understood as being a literal tree, at least as the primary interpretation, while there are other spiritual interpretations to be understood from it. St. John of Damascus understood it to mean contemplation. Though there are some things in the creation account that should be understood metaphorically, such as the serpent being Satan and not actually a literal snake.
 
It wasn’t just the “tree of knowledge”. God freely gave Adam and Eve knowledge. It was the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”; that is, the tree of personally incorporating both within one’s experience.

We don’t know whether it was literally a tree or whether it was a decision of some other sort. We do know, though, that it was a decision. God forbade us to “know” evil, but we insisted on it. And we still do.

God nevertheless provided us a means of obtaining freedom from the deadly consequences of “knowing evil”.
 
kennewickmike said:
We do not take the Book of Genesis literally but we do take it seriously.
Click to expand...
I went to Jewish school when I was younger and we never questioned if the tree of knowledge of goad AND evil was not a literal tree. It has been interpreted literally for thousands of years. I take it literally. One misconception is that many people assume the fruit was an apple. Many questions like this occur in our time when things have been interpreted relatively the same thousands of years before these questions arise. These questions of interpretation and disputing the meaning of the bible really arose after the protestant reformation. An example would be interpreting the eucharist in the last supper or did Mary stay a virgin all her life.

This question though is some what of a distraction to me from more important questions in the bible. We get so caught up in 7 days vs. 7 time periods when we can miss the real importance sometimes. I guess these questions are important though when we contemplate evolution and other serious questions of faith.
 
I believe in the Book of Genesis is true in its message and lessons because it was written with “God’s inspiration.” I think the expression is, God is the author, man is the pen. There is original sin, man did fall from grace. The book was written thousands of years ago with man trying to explain the the beginning of the human race. We still can’t do that even today.

Goofy joke: It wasn’t the apple in the tree, it was the PEAR on the ground… sorry
 
Does anyone know of a Good resource were I can find reasons for it being either or?
 
averheyen said:
I’ve got a good question,

In the book of Genisis, God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Was that a literal statement, or is “eating fruit from the tree of knowledge” a metaphor, and why?
Click to expand...

Literal. Just as any text has to be taken literally. There are several issues here, not just one:​

  • semantics
  • factuality
  • literary genre.
    They are related by being in a single text, in this case Gen. 2 - that does not make them identical; they are not.
Within the narrative, the eating of fruit is factual - but it’s not a factual event outside the narrative: the text is not historical, but something closer to myth. The eating is not a metaphor for anything - it’s an action within the story. The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” means, AFAIK, “knowledge of all things”. In eating, the eaters are “becoming gods” - on their own initiative. This becomes clearer later on; the story is about crossing limits, about “trans-gression”; the serpent does it, as do the two humans. The same motif of trans-gression occurs in
  • 6.1-4
  • the Flood narrative generally
  • 11.1-9
  • 19 (which owes a lot to the Flood narrative & to 6.1-4)
 
This is from the Catholic Catechism:

**396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. **
 
Metaphor. The tree symbolizes sin which triggers conscience.
 
averheyen said:
.

Was that a literal statement, or is “eating fruit from the tree of knowledge” a metaphor, and why?
Click to expand...
in short, it is allegory describing the transition from Original Justice to Original Sin:

Here is a broader analysis of the theological implications, from the thread on, “believing Satan’s lies”:
the dragon’s lies have been the same since the beginning. Here they are again, I’m trying to explain this as best as I can:

Analysis of Genesis 3 and Apocalypse 13

"Did God really say…?"
"You will surely not die!"

Translation: God is a liar, he does not determine the truth, He is NOT the truth. You determine the truth in the order of religion and morals. Therefore, have no regard for what God’s Truth, nor to do His Will. Do you your own will, whatever it may be, and there will be NO consequences, neither temporal nor eternal.

Humanity’s embrace of the lie is seen in Apocalypse 13:

"Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with it?"

This first great lie is the antithesis of Baptism. It utterly undoes one’s innocence before God and renders one a child of the devil if embraced. For this reason, does the Catechumen who stands before the priest to receive the waters of Baptism, go back to the Garden and undo the lies of the serpent. This reveals, through the very sacred liturgy of the Church, the reality that Baptism, or the desire thereof, is necessary for salvation, either explicitly or implicitly, for it is here the first great lie of the dragon is undone…

“Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of the children of God? Do you reject Satan, the Father of lies? And all his empty promises?”

The second lie is contained in the symbolism of the trees of the garden, and especially the forbidden tree.

*In effect, the trees symbolize the creation itself in relation to the Divine Purpose and Love. *

Partaking of the legitimate trees in the garden is a symbol of RECEIVING, in humble LOVE, the Creation from God and using it according to its Divine Purpose and Order. Behold the Creation is good, for it is a sign of Divine and Spiritual mysteries, it teaches us things of God, and it is a means, through the very physical essence of things, to love God and others. It is meant to be received from God, and offered to one another and back to God in love. This is the supreme meaning of the SACRAMENTALTIY and SIGN of Creation.

*Partaking of the forbidden tree, on the other hand, symbolizes a selfish rejection of the Divine Purpose and Love in Creation, GRASPING from God this creation, DIVORCING it from the context of its beautiful order, purpose, love, and mystery, and TAKING it ONLY for its brute superificialities. Further, man, in the second lie, is in effect choosing as his ultimate end the CreaTION instead of His CreaTOR. In other words, the taking of the forbidden fruit symbolizes the total REJECTION of God’s sacramentality in the Creation and of man placing himself “ye shall be as gods”] and the Creation ABOVE the Creator. *

Therefore does the CCC corroborate this apocalyptic mystery in the section on the deception of antichrist:

Quote:
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist,* a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh*.
So, again, the central sin of the fall is:

first, the rejection of God’s soveriegnty as the arbiter of truth and the truth Himself and the denial of the necessity to obey the Divine Will as well as the consequences of such disobedience,

and secondly, the utterly anti-sacramental rejection of the Creation from God, man raising himself and the creation above the Creator, where man believes he can fulfill himself intrinsically with the CreaTION alone, rather than in eternal covenant with the CreaTOR.

We have seen that the first lie is the utter antithesis to the Baptismal disposition. Therefore, the first lie is adequately, anti-Baptism.

For the symbolism of the second lie, we have seen that since this very lie is the utter rejection of the SACRAMENTALITY of creation, so this lie should find its best symbol in the debasing mockery of the SUPREME SACRAMENTAL SIGN itself, which is, by JPII’s theology of the body, MARRIAGE. Therefore, just as the just of Salvation History are repeatedly depicted as the SPOUSE or BRIDE of God, called to the supreme gift and reception of self, to love forever in immersion of depth in intellect and will, so the WHORE, that anti-symbol of the chaste Bride, forms the precise sign of the devil’s children, those who do not seek the eternal marriage with God forever in heaven, but choose to “fornicate” superficially with the world, with THIS creation, a creation utterly stripped of its sign of love and mystery, and taken only for its brute, materialistic superficialities. Hence, the second lie is anti-Marriage.

We have seen that heretics retain only two of the seven sacraments, Baptism and Marriage. The Christ instituted seven sacraments. Tertullian taught that the devil plaigarizes and mocks the good things of God, especially the sacraments. Therefore, why not see the two horns, like a Lamb, of the false prophet, as the dragon’s two primary lies in the fall, the two lies that summarize all sin and iniquity, which are precisely the mockery and debasement of the two sacraments left to heretics, Baptism and Marriage, so as to make them “the ultimate heresy.”
Click to expand...
 
I’ve been reading in the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on Genesis written by Rabbi Nahum Sarna.

The answer to the title question is: neither as I read the commentary.

There are idioms and forms of speech in Hebrew that we are not familiar with or accustomed to in English.

Gen 1:1 talks about God creating the heavens and the earth. This is a form of speech called “merism” where two words are used to represent one idea. So, “heaven and earth” just generally refers to “everything.”

In this case, we’re looking at, as it says in the verses, that Adam and Eve would have knowledge of “all moral things” - like God. Was it a tree? Yes, as far as the text goes, there’s not a paraphrasing of the Hebrew in that respect.

For purposes of discussion, the text is not focusing on the meaning of “the knowledge of good and evil” but on the command from God to Adam not to eat the fruit of that tree (which also is real fruit, of an unspecified kind). Keep the purpose of the story in mind.

If you start a little ways off, by reading Everybody’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen, you will get an organized overview of Jewish belief as expressed in the Talmud. The Talmud is the commentary on scripture that was written between 200 and 600 AD, but which started as an oral tradition from the time of the book of Ezra (this I’m recalling from the introduction to that book.) You won’t get far along in this book until you realize that story telling to teach morality is a big part of Judaism. Now, Cohen doesn’t talk much about the Christian Bible, but he might well have pointed out the “story telling” that Jesus did, when He spoke in parables. In Jesus’ day, story telling or parables was an ORDINARY method of teaching and was especially valued for the way it helped people remember moral principles.

In the Commentary on Genesis, Sarna does not dwell extensively on modern methods of Bible analysis (although he does not ignore them, either).

If I recall correctly, the Talmud is characterized by its source in the Jewish centers of learning. There is another classic form of Bible commentary which originated variously in the synagogues where Judaism was practiced, outside of Palestine for sure. This latter commentary is known as the Midrash.

Some other highlights related to the Fall of Adam and Eve. Sarna, drawing from the Talmud and Mishnah and other Jewish writings, points out that the serpent was talking to both Adam and Eve, even though the one verse says that the serpent was talking to the woman. The Hebrew uses “you” in the plural so the words are taken simply understood as being addressed to them both.

Notice Eve says that the fruit from this tree is “good” – WOW, the Hebrew reader cringes at that. Up to that point, only God has declared what was good. In Gen 1:1 to 2:3, the word for God is Elohim (plural). This is a word that attributes to God His being an almighty and powerful God. It also has the sense of God being a Judge. Notice in that section, God creates stuff and then doesn’t just “say” that it is good, He is “judging” that it is good. So, God is introduced there as the almighty creator and He alone decides what it “good.”

Recall too that Eve misquotes the original commandment from God to Adam, not just that they should not eat the fruit of this tree, but that they should not “touch” it either. Sarna sees in that some criticism of God’s command. Notice that Adam does not correct her.

There are four approaches to Jewish Bible interpretation. The first level is the “simple” sense of the text. I respectfully submit that Sarna is sticking to the simple sense of the text, and not overlaying metaphorical or allegorical meanings.

When you get to Cain and Abel, there is some discussion if they were two people or one conflicted person. When you get to higher levels of Jewish analysis, there can be some interesting viewpoints. But, the consensus of Jewish thought is that the Bible is always open to further and continuing analysis.
 
Lead_Me_Home said:
I went to Jewish school when I was younger and we never questioned if the tree of knowledge of goad AND evil was not a literal tree. It has been interpreted literally for thousands of years. I take it literally. One misconception is that many people assume the fruit was an apple.
Click to expand...
Hi, 🙂

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich saw in vision that it was a literal tree. Its fruit was neither apple nor pear. She also said that the serpent walked on two legs in the beginning. But, since this is classified as private revelation, no one has to believe her visions to be true. I have enjoyed them since they have given me a greater appreciation of Scripture and the Catholic faith.

Pax,
SHW
 
I was reading on Genesis last night and I came upon an interesting tidbit on the origin of the fruit being an apple:

This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com and their study of the Book of Moses:
Code: 
The Hebrew word for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, *eshadda’t tob wara'*, is difficult to translate.  Both “*good*” and “*evil*” are direct objects, and the ra' connotes not only moral evil but ordinary unfitness—“*bad*,” as in “*bad apple*.”  The Latin word *malum *means both “*bad*” and “*apple*,” which is how the apple came to be associated with the fruit of the forbidden tree (*Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, *page 656-57).
Click to expand...
 
NotWorthy said:
I was reading on Genesis last night and I came upon an interesting tidbit on the origin of the fruit being an apple:

This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com and their study of the Book of Moses:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the interesting info. I can see now how people came to associate “apple” with the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” even if it was not actually an apple. The tree probably “stood out” in some way.

Pax,
SHW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top