Tree of life in Genesis

[jcrichton]

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 .

Hi, Joseie!
…you are welcomed to interpret as you will… since this has been a circular exchange, I will take my leave.

God Bless!

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nita]

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?

Some things are mysteries. Particulars about the Tree of Life is one of those areas. God has not revealed the details either in Scripture or through His Church in its doctrines. We do know there was a tree of “life” in the garden, so there would be a relationship to “life”. Scripture does not state whether it nourished physical life, spiritual life, or both.

We do know that Adam and Eve did not have to eat of it’s fruit in order to initially receive immunity from death or sanctifying grace - God gifted them with both when He created them. The tree of life may have been a source of nourishment for immortal physical life, or for their spiritual life, or for both. They may or may not have eaten from it before sinning. We don’t know with certainty.

We are free to speculate as long as it doesn’t conflict with Scripture or any Church doctrines. If it conflicts in any way with either of them, it is an erroneous speculation. That’s why it’s important to study the teachings of the Church - to read the Catechism. It’s our protection against interpreting Scripture wrongly.

 

[joseie]

Some things are mysteries. Particulars about the Tree of Life is one of those areas. God has not revealed the details either in Scripture or through His Church in its doctrines. We do know there was a tree of “life” in the garden, so there would be a relationship to “life”. Scripture does not state whether it nourished physical life, spiritual life, or both.

We do know that Adam and Eve did not have to eat of it’s fruit in order to initially receive immunity from death or sanctifying grace - God gifted them with both when He created them. The tree of life may have been a source of nourishment for immortal physical life, or for their spiritual life, or for both. They may or may not have eaten from it before sinning. We don’t know with certainty.

We are free to speculate as long as it doesn’t conflict with Scripture or any Church doctrines. If it conflicts in any way with either of them, it is an erroneous speculation. That’s why it’s important to study the teachings of the Church - to read the Catechism. It’s our protection against interpreting Scripture wrongly.

Happy to note that you are slowly shredding of your earlier views and now agree that the role and significance of the tree of life are not clear.For what purpose God put it in the centre ,when and how its fruit would have been beneficial to Adam etc.not given.But two things are clear and beyond doubt .One is that its existence in Eden was the only reason for kicking them out from Eden as God feared that they may eat its fruit and live for ever.Second is that even after eating the fruit of the other tree the fruit of this tree would have made them live for ever.This much I am telling as directly available from the verses .So nobody can object to this .
Whether the ‘living for ever’ was immunity from physical death,or spiritual death or both ?It can be left to the imagination .But what one understand from the plain and direct meaning of the verses is that both the ‘death’ (effect of the fruit of the first tree) and ’ living for ever’ (effect of second fruit) are meant for physical death and physical living respectively.

 

[Nita]

Happy to note that you are slowly shredding of your earlier views

Sorry to disappoint you, but my original speculations haven’t changed a bit.
God bless you and fill you with His Holy Spirit as you continue to read His word in Scripture.

 

[kdbueno]

I understand your scholarly research, but the orientation regarding this is incorrect. If Adam and Eve fully consented to mercy, we wouldn’t have experienced the same.

 

[joseie]

I understand your scholarly research, but the orientation regarding this is incorrect. If Adam and Eve fully consented to mercy, we wouldn’t have experienced the same.

Not clear.Pl.elaborate a bit.My post and opinions are oriented towards evil/devil and away from God/virtue ?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Of the two trees in the centre of Eden, it is seen that the tree of life did not play any significant role.It is not known whether poor Adam was told about or aware of the benefits of eating its fruit which is living forever. Even though there was no prohibition against eating its fruit it appears that Adam or Eve did not bother to taste it’s fruit but was concentrating on the other tree.The most interesting thing is that its fruit was the perfect antidote for the fruit of the other tree.(death for eating one fruit and living for ever for eating the other fruit !). Even after eating the fruit of the first tree, they could have rushed to the second tree. Does the whole incident give also a lesson that we should be aware about the gifts and benefits given to us by the God and should utilise them at the earliest.

The problem is that Adam and Eve wanted to listen to the beguiling serpent rather than God. Adam tasted death and therefore was unworthy of Our Lord. He was unworthy to eat from the tree of life, also in the midst of the garden. Even if he wanted to eat from the tree of life, the Lord would not permit him. That’s why God banished him from the garden and set cherubim in the midst of the garden “with a flaming sword turning every which way in order to guard the way of the tree of life”. You see, Adam was unworthy because he tasted death.

 

[joseie]

The problem is that Adam and Eve wanted to listen to the beguiling serpent rather than God. Adam tasted death and therefore was unworthy of Our Lord. He was unworthy to eat from the tree of life, also in the midst of the garden. Even if he wanted to eat from the tree of life, the Lord would not permit him. That’s why God banished him from the garden and set cherubim in the midst of the garden “with a flaming sword turning every which way in order to guard the way of the tree of life”. You see, Adam was unworthy because he tasted death.

You appear to have not gone into the various points already discussed in this thread earlier.Still ,at the cost of repetition and with the hope that some thing new may come up let me respond to your post
What for then the tree was put in the centre of Eden ?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

You appear to have not gone into the various points already discussed in this thread earlier.Still ,at the cost of repetition and with the hope that some thing new may come up let me respond to your post
What for then the tree was put in the centre of Eden ?

Adam and Eve had a choice to make they could either eat from the tree of life or they could eat from the tree of death. They chose death. God only said, that every tree from the garden you cannot eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil. He never said, they couldn’t eat from the tree of life. However, since they chose the tree of death God banished from the garden so they could not eat from the tree of life and be found guilty.

 

[jcrichton]

Adam and Eve had a choice to make they could either eat from the tree of life or they could eat from the tree of death. They chose death. God only said, that every tree from the garden you cannot eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil. He never said, they couldn’t eat from the tree of life. However, since they chose the tree of death God banished from the garden so they could not eat from the tree of life and be found guilty.

Hi, Sacred Heart!
…one clarification: there was no tree of death in the Garden of Eden.

Death came into existence through Adam’s (and Eve’s) disobedience of God’s Command not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

They rejected God’s Authority and they incurred, along with all of humanity, the penalty for sin: death.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Sacred Heart!
…one clarification: there was no tree of death in the Garden of Eden.

Death came into existence through Adam’s (and Eve’s) disobedience of God’s Command not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

They rejected God’s Authority and they incurred, along with all of humanity, the penalty for sin: death.

Maran atha!

Angel

Since the other is tree of life ,its fruit giving life for ever,and since this tree’s fruit gives death, ‘tree of death’
Is also an apt name . But the view(sacred heart) that they had a choice to select either of the fruit is not correct as no such choice is seen given to them.Besides as I already mentioned it is not known whether the poor Adam was aware of or told about the effect of the fruit of the tree of life.

 

[jcrichton]

Since the other is tree of life ,its fruit giving life for ever,and since this tree’s fruit gives death, ‘tree of death’
Is also an apt name . But the view(sacred heart) that they had a choice to select either of the fruit is not correct as no such choice is seen given to them.Besides as I already mentioned it is not known whether the poor Adam was aware of or told about the effect of the fruit of the tree of life.

Hi, Joseie!
Again, we can interpret as we wish, given that we have freedom to do so, yet that does not mean that our interpretation makes Scriptures say what we think it says.

The name given by God to the tree is “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” God did not state that the name could be interchanged with “the tree of death.”

It is human condition to see images in the clouds… yet, just because we have vivid (or not so vivid in some cases) imaginations it does not mean that God actually forms images in the clouds for our bemusement!

It is the same for Scriptures. Loads of people see (interpret) in Scriptures that which they hold affinity towards–even in spite of the Word stating differently.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Regarding the name of the trees, a bit of thought :
Let us take it for granted that God named them appropriately.Cosidering the effect of its fruit (which was confirmed by God )the tree of life got its correct name. From G3-22 it is seen that the other tree also perhaps got the correct name since its fruit made them to know good and evil.
But there is nothing in the scriptures as to what benefit/advantage/disadvantage they got by knowing good and evil.Normally it should be a good thing to know what is good and evil.But for some reasons God alone knows ,he did not want them to know about good and evil.Let it be so.
As far as we are concerned the tree only brought death,its other effect being not seen on them or mentioned about subseqently.That is why I said that identifying it as a tree of death is also correct.

 

[fhansen]

Regarding the name of the trees, a bit of thought :
Let us take it for granted that God named them appropriately.Cosidering the effect of its fruit (which was confirmed by God )the tree of life got its correct name. From G3-22 it is seen that the other tree also perhaps got the correct name since its fruit made them to know good and evil.
But there is nothing in the scriptures as to what benefit/advantage/disadvantage they got by knowing good and evil.Normally it should be a good thing to know what is good and evil.But for some reasons God alone knows ,he did not want them to know about good and evil.Let it be so.
As far as we are concerned the tree only brought death,its other effect being not seen on them or mentioned about subseqently.That is why I said that identifying it as a tree of death is also correct.

In man’s innocence he has no need to know good and evil; goodness would simply be the norm of his existence, with nothing to contrast it with. The only possible purpose for that knowledge is to learn of the futility and wrongfulness of evil, to become like Prodigals having tasted life in the pigsty, with God ultimately bringing a greater good out of this knowledge even though.it would otherwise be worthless on its own. The greater good is for man to learn what *He *already knows-that His wisdom and will are perfect-so that the prodigals will come running back home, turning back to the Father as they make the right choice this time. The fact that God never abandoned man serves to show that He must still value man’s obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-as a necessary evil, itself, so to speak-if that’s what it takes to teach us, the hard way, what we need to learn.

 

[joseie]

In man’s innocence he has no need to know good and evil; goodness would simply be the norm of his existence, with nothing to contrast it with. The only possible purpose for that knowledge is to learn of the futility and wrongfulness of evil, to become like Prodigals having tasted life in the pigsty, with God ultimately bringing a greater good out of this knowledge even though.it would otherwise be worthless on its own. The greater good is for man to learn what *He *already knows-that His wisdom and will are perfect-so that the prodigals will come running back home, turning back to the Father as they make the right choice this time. The fact that God never abandoned man serves to show that He must still value man’s obtaining the knowledge of good and evil-as a necessary evil, itself, so to speak-if that’s what it takes to teach us, the hard way, what we need to learn.

Frankly I can’t follow what you are saying. Obtaining the knowledge of good and evil is a necessary evil? No need to know good and evil ?

 

[fhansen]

Frankly I can’t follow what you are saying. Obtaining the knowledge of good and evil is a necessary evil? No need to know good and evil ?

Sorry, I didn’t word that very well.

Even though it was not God’s will that man should sin by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He allowed it anyway, and did not abandon man altogether afterwards to the death which the tree brought about but instead used the experience to eventually bring about an even greater good. With the knowledge of good and evil man may learn for himself, with the help of grace, to ultimately embrace the good alone, something Adam failed to do. This all culminated in the coming of our Redeemer who came to convict the world of the sin it was embroiled in and enslaved to, and free us of it. He was the antidote to the Fall, His obedience the opposite of Adam’s disobedience. Jesus reconciles wayward creation with its Creator, atoning for sin and restoring the knowledge of God, so that communion may take place between them again, as was always meant to be the right order of things.

Jesus is the ultimate Good; when we see Him we see God. And then the choice between good and evil, light and darkness, becomes more starkly defined.

 

[jcrichton]

Regarding the name of the trees, a bit of thought :
Let us take it for granted that God named them appropriately.Cosidering the effect of its fruit (which was confirmed by God )the tree of life got its correct name. From G3-22 it is seen that the other tree also perhaps got the correct name since its fruit made them to know good and evil.
But there is nothing in the scriptures as to what benefit/advantage/disadvantage they got by knowing good and evil.Normally it should be a good thing to know what is good and evil.But for some reasons God alone knows ,he did not want them to know about good and evil.Let it be so.
As far as we are concerned the tree only brought death,its other effect being not seen on them or mentioned about subseqently.That is why I said that identifying it as a tree of death is also correct.

Hi, Joseie!
…again, it is espousing “death” to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that makes you think that the tree brought death.

Death was brought about by Adam’s sin.

Adam’s disobedience of the Creator and allegiance with the creatures brought him death.

Adam and Eve did acquire Knowledge of Good and Evil, making themselves similar to God. How do I know? Here’s what Scriptures tell us:

7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. 11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? (Genesis 3:7-11)

Adam and Eve became cognizant of their physical exposure, covered themselves, and hid from God.

The problem you are having, as Adam and Eve had, is that you want what you want when you want it–that is, you are not humble enough to allow God to determine *when *we should have access to those things to which He has set limits.

Scriptures do not tell us that God never intended for Adam and Eve to become as He is; the truth is far from it:

For I am the Lord your God: be holy because I am holy. (Leviticus 11:44a)

Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. (1 St. Peter 1:16)

Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. (1 St. John 3:2)

12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

It is God’s Design that we become as He. Yet, that will be accomplished according to His Will not ours.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
…again, it is espousing “death” to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that makes you think that the tree brought death.

Death was brought about by Adam’s sin.

Adam’s disobedience of the Creator and allegiance with the creatures brought him death.

Adam and Eve did acquire Knowledge of Good and Evil, making themselves similar to God. How do I know? Here’s what Scriptures tell us:

Adam and Eve became cognizant of their physical exposure, covered themselves, and hid from God.

The problem you are having, as Adam and Eve had, is that you want what you want when you want it–that is, you are not humble enough to allow God to determine *when *we should have access to those things to which He has set limits.

Scriptures do not tell us that God never intended for Adam and Eve to become as He is; the truth is far from it:

It is God’s Design that we become as He. Yet, that will be accomplished according to His Will not ours.

Maran atha!

Angel

So inshort you are telling that God had intended that they acquire knowledge of good and evil and become like him but wanted this to happen later when he desires. A possible explanation for the presence of this tree in Eden and for God not telling the beneficial part of the fruit to Adam initially.Good ! There could be simlar explanation for the presence of the other tree also (the tree in this thread).Pl.try.This was the intention of this thread.

 

[jcrichton]

So inshort you are telling that God had intended that they acquire knowledge of good and evil and become like him but wanted this to happen later when he desires. A possible explanation for the presence of this tree in Eden and for God not telling the beneficial part of the fruit to Adam initially.Good ! There could be simlar explanation for the presence of the other tree also (the tree in this thread).Pl.try.This was the intention of this thread.

Hi, Joseie!
You are correct! Here are other references to the Tree of Life:

18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold on her: and he that shall retain her is blessed. (Proverbs 3:18)

30 The fruit of the just man is a tree of life: and he that gaineth souls, is wise. (Proverbs 11:30)

4 A peaceable tongue is a tree of life: but that which is immoderate, shall crush the spirit. (Proverbs 15:4)

7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God. (Apocalypse 2:7)

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.

14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. (Apocalypse 22:2, 14)

The first passage (Proverbs 3:18) speaks of Wisdom (God’s Wisdom) which is the source of all life. Proverbs 11:30 and 15:4 speak in a roundabout way (symbolic) about life.

The references in Apocalypse 2 and 22 speak directly about the Tree of Life; in Apocalypse 22 both the tree’s origin and purpose is Revealed. Interestingly, though, we also find counter points: the origin is God (verse 1) and there are those who are purposely kept away from accessing the Tree (verse 15):

1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

15 Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. (Apocalypse 22:1, 15)

Since the Tree’s origins are found in God, only God has the Authority to determine its purpose, and when, how, and, most importantly, who is granted access.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
You are correct! Here are other references to the Tree of Life:

The first passage (Proverbs 3:18) speaks of Wisdom (God’s Wisdom) which is the source of all life. Proverbs 11:30 and 15:4 speak in a roundabout way (symbolic) about life.

The references in Apocalypse 2 and 22 speak directly about the Tree of Life; in Apocalypse 22 both the tree’s origin and purpose is Revealed. Interestingly, though, we also find counter points: the origin is God (verse 1) and there are those who are purposely kept away from accessing the Tree (verse 15):

Since the Tree’s origins are found in God, only God has the Authority to determine its purpose, and when, how, and, most importantly, who is granted access.

Maran atha!

Angel

Ok.Let us hold that the exact purpose and role of the tree of life in Eden is not so much disclosed by God.Still having put it in the centre of Eden it could have some purpose. Except that its fruit gives life for ever and that its presence was the only reason to ouster them Eden, we are not given any other information(Was Adam aware of about its fruit,did he try its fruit etc).May be God wants that we need not much bother about these.