Tree of life in Genesis

[jcrichton]

“Those” includes the Church’s Magisterium. I’ll cite the Catechism paragraph 1008 again!
1008 Death is a consequence of sin. the Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2I.HTM#61

The death that was a consequence of Adam & Eve’s sin included both physical “bodily death” and spiritual death.
See posts 30 & 33 for more citations from the Catechism and from Gaudium et Spes.

Hi, Nita!
Thank you for your clarification.

…I’m not versed in the CCC–yet, Scriptures do not specify physical death (and Adam and Eve did indeed not die upon eating of the fruit nor when faced by God). Perhaps my wording was too generic. I have triedto point out how it could be interpreted that death enter nature through Adam’s sin… but when speaking directly of the textual content of the passage, I do not see it.

Yet, it matters not to me (physical death) since my immortality is hidden in Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
…sorry that I keep interjecting… we do not know that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had a harmful effect. God Commanded Adam not to it of its fruit. He warned that on eating of it Adam would die. God did not say: “the fruit is poisonous and it will kill you.” God stated that if he were to it of the fruit he would die. Adam ate. Adam died. Awareness, Knowledge, does not kill.

Maran atha!

Angel

No,you are not interjecting! Pl.keep posting the response which I am looking forward with enthusiasm. I expect that by seing the different views we may come to know something hitherto not known to us .
I differ with your views here.The fruit did not have any harmful effect ? Is not the plain meaning of what was told to Adam was that it is poisoness and will kill you? .Infact had God told him this way,the poor Adam would have understood its implication better !

 

[fhansen]

Hi, Nita!
Thank you for your clarification.

…I’m not versed in the CCC–yet, Scriptures do not specify physical death (and Adam and Eve did indeed not die upon eating of the fruit nor when faced by God). Perhaps my wording was too generic. I have triedto point out how it could be interpreted that death enter nature through Adam’s sin… but when speaking directly of the textual content of the passage, I do not see it.

Yet, it matters not to me (physical death) since my immortality is hidden in Christ.

Maran atha!

Angel

The Church does actually teach that physical death, along with spiritual death-the “death of the soul”-was a consequence of the original sin:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
**

 

[Nita]

Hi, Nita!
Thank you for your clarification.

…I’m not versed in the CCC–yet, Scriptures do not specify physical death

They don’t specify “spiritual” death either.

(and Adam and Eve did indeed not die upon eating of the fruit nor when faced by God). …

The Scriptures do not specify when death would occur - just that it would happen. God obviously didn’t want physical death to happen immediately or it would have happened immediately, and that would have been the end of the human race since they were childless at that point in time. Spiritual death may have occurred immediately.

 

[cfauster]

God obviously didn’t want physical death to happen immediately or it would have happened immediately, and that would have been the end of the human race since they were childless at that point in time. Spiritual death may have occurred immediately.

And as far as what might have been had our first parents remained without sin, I think transition to a state similar to Christ’s resurrected body but without needing to experience death first might be a helpful concept in order to adhere to the RC Catechism. Of course, in a sense it’s hypothetical because our first parents sinned, and died. Anyway, the following comes from “Death” in the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329 (produced by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome):

According to the well-known Augustinian consideration, at the beginning of human history, God gave men and women, despite their being creatures, the “capacity not to die” (posse non mori, cf. De Genesi ad litteram, VI, 36,25: CSEL 28,197): resurrection (or a state of union with God no longer reversible) would have represented the immediate crowning achievement of each historical life, without the interruption of death. This does not mean that physiological laws would have been invalidated, and that human beings would have continued their earthy life indefinitely: what is promised as achievement of the universal history in a redeeming history marked by sin, could have been the achievement of each individual life if there had been no sin (cf. Schmaus, 1953). It does not seem that biological laws are underestimated, nor their foundation deprived, by the biblical doctrine: they are part of the original alliance between God and our ancestors; these laws accept divine judgment of the human sin which broke that alliance, bearing on themselves the consequences of that sin. The very fact that the biological law of mortality is profoundly unsatisfactory to human beings --who often rebel against death as something opposed to their nature-- makes it acceptable under the affirmation of the Catholic faith that death is a consequence of sin, and is perceived as suffering and the worst of all evils.

 

[jcrichton]

No,you are not interjecting! Pl.keep posting the response which I am looking forward with enthusiasm. I expect that by seing the different views we may come to know something hitherto not known to us .
I differ with your views here.The fruit did not have any harmful effect ? Is not the plain meaning of what was told to Adam was that it is poisoness and will kill you? .Infact had God told him this way,the poor Adam would have understood its implication better !

Hi, Joseie!
…but that’s just it!

God could not warn Adam of a poisonous fruit that did not exist. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave Adam and Eve awareness; it did not poison their system (physiologically/biologically) nor their mind. Death came to them as consequence of indulging themselves at the expense of God’s Command: “Do not”

If you tell a toddler not to do something, do you explain all of the ramifications or do you simple make a statement? Most toddlers have quite finite attention… by the time you engage them past the third or fourth word they are already zoning out… their comprehension level is nil–a command structure with the fewest possible divergence (explanation) is most useful.

Now, when we take the hindsight approach… we can perceive shortcomings in the Revelations because we are so much more aware/cognizant of the mysteries that have unfolded… yet, it pleases God that we continue to depend on Him so even those mysteries that have unfolded have within them a deeper unsearched/discovered mystery:

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 St. John 3:2)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The Church does actually teach that physical death, along with spiritual death-the “death of the soul”-was a consequence of the original sin:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286**

Hi!
…I’m not disputing Church Teachings… I was stating what I understood from the passages of Scriptures–yet, while I do not see how the Church arrived at the conclusion that the passage in Genesis means that Adam (as well as Creation) incurred both Spiritual and physical death, I accept it since there is such a thing as individual Inspiration and Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

The original issue in this thread was about the significance of the tree of life in the centre of the Eden.The issue of the type death about which God warned them ,then came up.On this the the position to be taken as per the views in the preceding posts is that due to the sin both physical and spiritual death has arisen.
As for the tree of life, it appears from the discussions (except my suggestion in the OP), that as far as Adam or Eden is concerned,there was not much significance or role for this tree though it was in the centre of Eden. Of course only because this tree was in Eden,they had to go out .That is, its purpose was only to serve as an excuse to kick them out? Difficult to believe.I therefore still feel that its fruit was meant to be eaten by them which they did not for some reason or other.G2:16 is quite relevant here which says that God told him to eat the fruit of every tree other than the tree of k owledge of good and evil.Had they eaten it they would not have sinned.A case of missing or not utilising the opportunity given by God at the appropriate time ,as I have opined in the O.P.

 

[Nita]

…As for the tree of life, it appears from the discussions (except my suggestion in the OP), that as far as Adam or Eden is concerned,there was not much significance or role for this tree though it was in the centre of Eden.

I don’t recall the discussions coming to that conclusion – except for, as you note, your suggestion. I thought it was generally recognized that the Tree of Life was very significant for Adam and Eve. It would have been a source of eternal life (immunity from physical death) if they obeyed God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Of course only because this tree was in Eden,they had to go out .That is, its purpose was only to serve as an excuse to kick them out? Difficult to believe.

More than “difficult” - impossible.

I therefore still feel that its fruit was meant to be eaten by them which they did not for some reason or other.G2:16 is quite relevant here which says that God told him to eat the fruit of every tree other than the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God did not tell them they must eat the fruit of every tree (except the one) as though it were a command. That is not the sense of the verses having to do with food. G2:16 says they could “freely eat”.
1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

Had they eaten it they would not have sinned

On what basis do you claim that. Scripture does not say it; I’ve never read a single Catholic commentary (or other for that matter) that proposed that meaning; and the Church does not teach that meaning.A case of missing or not utilising the opportunity given by God at the appropriate time ,as I have opined in the O.P.The opportunity they missed was the opportunity to be obedient to God; to trust in his love, goodness and wisdom rather than their own reasoning.

 

[jcrichton]

The original issue in this thread was about the significance of the tree of life in the centre of the Eden.The issue of the type death about which God warned them ,then came up.On this the the position to be taken as per the views in the preceding posts is that due to the sin both physical and spiritual death has arisen.
As for the tree of life, it appears from the discussions (except my suggestion in the OP), that as far as Adam or Eden is concerned,there was not much significance or role for this tree though it was in the centre of Eden. Of course only because this tree was in Eden,they had to go out .That is, its purpose was only to serve as an excuse to kick them out? Difficult to believe.I therefore still feel that its fruit was meant to be eaten by them which they did not for some reason or other.G2:16 is quite relevant here which says that God told him to eat the fruit of every tree other than the tree of k owledge of good and evil.Had they eaten it they would not have sinned.A case of missing or not utilising the opportunity given by God at the appropriate time ,as I have opined in the O.P.

Hi, Joseie!
I think you are getting it wrong… it is not that the Tree of Life had no significance… it is that by disobeying God and eating the one fruit which Adam was Commanded by God not to eat, He (and Eve) forfeited the right/opportunity to eat from the Tree of Life.

Once they sinned, the only outcome from eating from the Tree of Life would have been that Adam and Eve would remain Eternally in an unrighteous state–would you call that a win? Yes, they would lived forever; yet, eternally shunned by God.

Now, had they eaten of the Tree of Life without eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they would not have sinned–the Command forbade only the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Conversely, had they eaten of both (first of the Tree of Life then of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) they would undoubtedly end up in the same predicament: living eternally in sin.

The only escape would have been to remain loyal and obedient to God’s Command and not have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

I don’t recall the discussions coming to that conclusion – except for, as you note, your suggestion. I thought it was generally recognized that the Tree of Life was very significant for Adam and Eve. It would have been a source of eternal life (immunity from physical death) if they obeyed God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

More than “difficult” - impossible.

God did not tell them they must eat the fruit of every tree (except the one) as though it were a command. That is not the sense of the verses having to do with food. G2:16 says they could “freely eat”.
1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

On what basis do you claim that. Scripture does not say it; I’ve never read a single Catholic commentary (or other for that matter) that proposed that meaning; and the Church does not teach that meaning.

So you are telling that the tree of life was very significant for them.But the reason mentioned is not clear.Only if they had not eaten the fruit of the first tree would the fruit of the tree of life become a source of eaternal life for them? That is, they should have eaten it before eating the other fruit so as to get eartenal life ? My point was also that they missed that golden opportunity !
Also not clear as to why you are considering eternal life as immunity from physical death only.As I have pointed out earlier if the first fruit brings both physical and spiritual death ,the second fruit should give immunity from both.That is ,you can’t take a view that the’ death’ related to the first fruit is both physical and spiritual but the ’ life ’ related to the second fruit is only physical.

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
I think you are getting it wrong… it is not that the Tree of Life had no significance… it is that by disobeying God and eating the one fruit which Adam was Commanded by God not to eat, He (and Eve) forfeited the right/opportunity to eat from the Tree of Life.

Once they sinned, the only outcome from eating from the Tree of Life would have been that Adam and Eve would remain Eternally in an unrighteous state–would you call that a win? Yes, they would lived forever; yet, eternally shunned by God.

Now, had they eaten of the Tree of Life without eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they would not have sinned–the Command forbade only the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Conversely, had they eaten of both (first of the Tree of Life then of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) they would undoubtedly end up in the same predicament: living eternally in sin.

The only escape would have been to remain loyal and obedient to God’s Command and not have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Maran atha!

Angel

There is some contradiction . According to you it is of no difference if they eat the fruit of the tree of life either before or after eating the other fruit.That means its fruit is of no significance to them where as you are saying also that it has got significance.

 

[jcrichton]

There is some contradiction . According to you it is of no difference if they eat the fruit of the tree of life either before or after eating the other fruit.That means its fruit is of no significance to them where as you are saying also that it has got significance.

Hi, Joseie!
…no, there’s no contradiction.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are not opposite and complementary… that is, one is not dependent upon the other nor do they undo any effect. In both cases neither have a negative effect since neither of them are poisonous.

I think part of the problem you are having is that you are ascribing “death/poison” to one tree (Tree of Knowledge) and ascribing “antidote” to the other (Tree of Life).

Death enters not through the eating of the fruit. Death enters through the disobedience of God’s Command.

Again, if Adam and Eve would have eaten only of the Tree of Life, no death would have entered and they would have had immortality (live eternally); hence, the value of the Tree of Life.

Yet, once they sinned eating of the Tree of Life would be of no benefit to them since they were already dead Spiritually–at this time the most they could get from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life would be immortality in a sinful state (which would remain so if the order would have been reversed: TK first then TL = eternal damnation; TL first fallowed by TK = eternity in damnation).

I hope this helps!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nita]

So you are telling that the tree of life was very significant for them.But the reason mentioned is not clear.Only if they had not eaten the fruit of the first tree would the fruit of the tree of life become a source of eaternal life for them? That is, they should have eaten it before eating the other fruit so as to get eartenal life ? My point was also that they missed that golden opportunity !

I never said they should have eaten it before eating the forbidden fruit. That is what YOU keep saying (and also that they should have eaten of it immediately after sinning). I said that it would not be for their greater good or benefit to eat from it after they disobeyed, and that is why God ensured that they could not eat of it.

I have no idea whether or not they ate from it prior to sinning. You seem to think that if they had – or if they would have eaten of it after sinning – everything would have been fine for them.

As I have pointed out earlier if the first fruit brings both physical and spiritual death ,the second fruit should give immunity from both.That is ,you can’t take a view that the’ death’ related to the first fruit is both physical and spiritual but the ’ life ’ related to the second fruit is only physical.

???

Adam and Eve enjoyed both spiritual life (sanctifying grace in their soul) and immunity from physical death as gifts from God at their creation. They did not have to eat from the Tree of Life to receive/experience those gifts.
CCC 375 & 376 vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1B.HTM#1H1

 

[joseie]

Both the posts just above vehemently say that the tree of life was very significant and at the same time conclude that its fruit was of no beneficial use either before or after sinnig.Am I not correctly getting what you are intending to say ?

 

[Nita]

Both the posts just above vehemently say that the tree of life was very significant and at the same time conclude that its fruit was of no beneficial use either before or ** after sinnig**.Am I not correctly getting what you are intending to say ?

Re red underlined: ** I definitely did not** say that. I said just the opposite – that it was of benefit to humans in the original sinless state.

Re green underlined: ** I did say that **-- I did say that it was not to their greater good or benefit to eat of the Tree of Life in the fallen state that resulted from their sin.

 

[joseie]

Re red underlined: ** I definitely did not** say that. I said just the opposite – that it was of benefit to humans in the original sinless state.

Re green underlined: ** I did say that **-- I did say that it was not to their greater good or benefit to eat of the Tree of Life in the fallen state that resulted from their sin.

Thanks.Your red- green identification : well done! However pl.tell how it was beneficial in the original sinless state.Do you mean that it was beneficial to Adam before his sin?If yes what was the benefit? He did not get the benifit?

 

[jcrichton]

Both the posts just above vehemently say that the tree of life was very significant and at the same time conclude that its fruit was of no beneficial use either before or after sinnig.Am I not correctly getting what you are intending to say ?

Hi, Joseie!
…you are having a problem… it seems to me that you are determined to use your “filter” to come to the same conclusion over and over…

What I am saying is that Adam and Eve sinned by rejecting God’s Command to not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its fruit was not poisonous; hence, it did not required any form of antidote. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil did not cause Adam and Eve to sin. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil did not poison Adam and Eve. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil did not bring death into the universe (Spiritual or otherwise).

Sin brought death into the universe; thusly, Adam’s and Eve’s sin made them, as well as their descendants, impure (unrighteous): dead Spirituality.

Had Adam and Eve not sinned (incurred Spiritual death) the fruit of the Tree of Life would have provided them with immortality:

1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from** the throne of God and of the Lamb**. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more; but **the throne of God and of the Lamb **shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. (Apocalypse 22:1-4)

The Tree of Life is part of God’s Spiritual Being–nothing impure can exist in God’s Presence.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not bring death to the universe;sin brought death to the universe -I humbly do no agree to this.I go by the clear verses .That is, death was brought as warned because the fruit was eaten .

 

[fhansen]

Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not bring death to the universe;sin brought death to the universe -I humbly do no agree to this.I go by the clear verses .That is, death was brought as warned because the fruit was eaten .

Another way to put it is that disobedience of God causes death. The act of eating the fruit was that very act of disobedience