B
bones_IV
Guest
Does the tree of life mentioned in genesis represent the cross? If so, how?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
colliric
Guest
Not really, in the Hebrew understanding of it, it meant literal physical and spiritual immortality. Those who ate it undeserving would be committing the ultimate sin in becoming like a god in that we would be able to be physically immortal.Does the tree of life mentioned in genesis represent the cross? If so, how?
The Book of revelation talks about the same tree differently, it shows the fruit of “the tree of life” as gift god will bestow at the end of time to those who will be in heaven deserving of it. Those deserving will be given the fruit of the tree of life and by deservingly eating of it dwell with god forever. But those who eat of it un-deservingly will perish in eternal torment. (Sounds familiar to me!)
CS Lewis wrote about the tree of life, not surprisingly in “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew”, he writes about a tree which can heal people if they use it correctly, but can make damnable Ice demons of those who choose to steal from it. In his books, a descendant of this tree becomes the famous wardrobe portal into the world of Narnia from our world.
To me the tree as it is talked about in Revelation, the gift from god to allow us to cross over, makes it clear it is not the cross, but is in fact the gift of the Last supper itself, not of christ’s sacrifice(The cross) but of his supper commemorating his sacrifice, The fruit is Christ, the way to heaven is to accept Christ’s gift of it.
F
Franciscan
Guest
Yes, the tree in the Garden of Eden had fruit which when eaten led to eternal death.Does the tree of life mentioned in genesis represent the cross? If so, how?
The Cross has the body of Christ when consummed leads to eternal life.
Mary. the New Eve, stood under the tree as the “co-sufferer” with Jesus, unlike Eve she submitted to the Father’s will-sinless.
Participating in our redemption at the foot of the cross.
Just as Eve gave Adam ther fruit, Mary, as the New Eve, gave us his body(literally) through her Motherhood.
C
colliric
Guest
It is a gift god is essentially bestowing now to those who partake of it in our world, but although it is a gift given now, it does not take affect until after our transformation into Souls. It can be taken by those undeserving(and they may not even know they are so), and those who do that drink to their spiritual death.
To me the tree as it is talked about in Revelation, the gift from god to allow us to cross over, makes it clear it is not the cross, but is in fact the gift of the Last supper itself, not of christ’s sacrifice(The cross) but of his supper commemorating his sacrifice, The fruit is Christ’s body and blood, the way to heaven is to accept Christ’s gift of it.
The Tree is Christ, and it’s fruits are bread and wine, only they are really body and blood.
To me the tree as it is talked about in Revelation, the gift from god to allow us to cross over, makes it clear it is not the cross, but is in fact the gift of the Last supper itself, not of christ’s sacrifice(The cross) but of his supper commemorating his sacrifice, The fruit is Christ’s body and blood, the way to heaven is to accept Christ’s gift of it.
The Tree is Christ, and it’s fruits are bread and wine, only they are really body and blood.
C
colliric
Guest
The tree is not talked about as a symbol of that particular sacrifice or act, it is Salvation, it’s fruits are salvation, it’s salvation, but it is not that act. Christ in fact literally said he was the tree when he said he was the vine.Yes, the tree in the Garden of Eden had fruit which when eaten led to eternal death.
The Cross has the body of Christ when consummed leads to eternal life.
Mary. the New Eve, stood under the tree as the “co-sufferer” with Jesus, unlike Eve she submitted to the Father’s will-sinless.
Participating in our redemption at the foot of the cross.
Just as Eve gave Adam ther fruit, Mary, as the New Eve, gave us his body(literally) through her Motherhood.
His fruits bare the gifts of god from whatever the tree of life is in heaven, remembering that like “the tree of knowledge” the tree of life was metaphor, in fact for immortality.
He is not the original tree of which god has complete control(metaphorically representory of being accepted into heaven and everlasting at the end of our days), but he is a descendant of it.
One can perhaps say that the act of crucifixion was represented when he is talking about his “fruits”, the act of crucifixion can be related to the act of fruits becoming “ripe” and now edible gifts. Erasing of sins is certainly the greatest gift one can receive, But he himself, and his teachings are our “Tree of life”. The tree of life existed in eden before christ, but like CS lewis’s wardrobe which allowed children to pass into Narnia if they wished it, Christ is also the “Tree of life” and bears the fruit of immortality and the gift of Heaven, the way we are meant to receive it from god… through acceptance of Christ and the reality of his crucifixion to erase our sins.
F
Franciscan
Guest
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I’ve always wondered how things would have been different if Adam and Eve hadn’t listened to Satan and had eaten of the Tree of Life instead.
M
mattkennel
Guest
“The tree of life which was planted by God in Paradise pre-figured this precious Cross. For since death was by a tree, it was fitting that life and resurrection should be bestowed by a tree.” -St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV, Chapter 11).
The tree of life was what theologians call a type of the cross. The paralells between these two objects are striking.
The tree of life is made of wood.
The cross is made of wood.
He who eats of the tree of life receives everlasting life.
He who receives the fruits of the cross receives eternal life.
The tree of life is in the middle of a garden.
The cross is close enough to a garden that Jesus could be buried in one.
This does not mean that there can be no other meanings to the tree of life (it can, in fact, represent Christ himself, as in Catechetical Lecture 13 of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Paragraph 34), but it does mean that the tree of life is a type of the cross.
Other references to the Cross as the Tree of Life in the Fathers include
-Origen in Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 37. Apparently, in Origen’s time, seeing the Tree of Life as prefiguring the cross was so common that Celsus, a pagan, accused Christians of having made up the tree of life.
-St. Ephraim the Syrian, in Nisibene Hymn 58 and Hymn 4 of the Pearl.
-St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Third Theological Oration.
The tree of life was what theologians call a type of the cross. The paralells between these two objects are striking.
The tree of life is made of wood.
The cross is made of wood.
He who eats of the tree of life receives everlasting life.
He who receives the fruits of the cross receives eternal life.
The tree of life is in the middle of a garden.
The cross is close enough to a garden that Jesus could be buried in one.
This does not mean that there can be no other meanings to the tree of life (it can, in fact, represent Christ himself, as in Catechetical Lecture 13 of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Paragraph 34), but it does mean that the tree of life is a type of the cross.
Other references to the Cross as the Tree of Life in the Fathers include
-Origen in Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 37. Apparently, in Origen’s time, seeing the Tree of Life as prefiguring the cross was so common that Celsus, a pagan, accused Christians of having made up the tree of life.
-St. Ephraim the Syrian, in Nisibene Hymn 58 and Hymn 4 of the Pearl.
-St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Third Theological Oration.
B
bones_IV
Guest
You said, “He who eats of the tree of life receives everlasting life.” Did not God say don’t eat of tree or you will die? Also, didn’t Adam and Eve sin when they ate of the tree of life? They got kicked out of the garden of Eden didn’t they? How could they get eternal life when they got excluded from the garden of Eden. I’m confused here.“The tree of life which was planted by God in Paradise pre-figured this precious Cross. For since death was by a tree, it was fitting that life and resurrection should be bestowed by a tree.” -St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV, Chapter 11).
The tree of life was what theologians call a type of the cross. The paralells between these two objects are striking.
The tree of life is made of wood.
The cross is made of wood.
He who eats of the tree of life receives everlasting life.
He who receives the fruits of the cross receives eternal life.
The tree of life is in the middle of a garden.
The cross is close enough to a garden that Jesus could be buried in one.
This does not mean that there can be no other meanings to the tree of life (it can, in fact, represent Christ himself, as in Catechetical Lecture 13 of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Paragraph 34), but it does mean that the tree of life is a type of the cross.
Other references to the Cross as the Tree of Life in the Fathers include
-Origen in Contra Celsus, Book VI, Chapter 37. Apparently, in Origen’s time, seeing the Tree of Life as prefiguring the cross was so common that Celsus, a pagan, accused Christians of having made up the tree of life.
-St. Ephraim the Syrian, in Nisibene Hymn 58 and Hymn 4 of the Pearl.
-St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Third Theological Oration.
M
mattkennel
Guest
Colliric, although he made many good observations, made a few that I quite frankly find confusing.
I think that this interpretation is a bit of a stretch. The image of the vine and the branches speaks of our incorporation into Christ. We, the branches, draw our sustenance from Christ, the vine. We remain a part of the vine by keeping his word in us and obeying his commandments. The tree of life, on the other hand, gives life by eating its fruits. But the fruit of the vine grows on the branches. So, are we supposed to be eating ourselves for eternal life? I’d have to see a better defense before I would concede that these two images go together.Christ in fact literally said he was the tree when he said he was the vine.
I’m not really sure what you’re referring to when you mention “our transformation into Souls”. We already have souls, and we will at the end of time be given glorified bodies like Christ in the ressurection of the dead. So, once again, I’d have to hear an explanation of what you’re talking about.It is a gift god is essentially bestowing now to those who partake of it in our world, but although it is a gift given now, it does not take affect until after our transformation into Souls.
I did a search of the book of Revelation, and could find no reference to souls dying by eating from the tree of life. In fact, it is only the just who can eat from that tree (Rev 22:14). The unjust are excluded from even eating from the tree of life (Rev 22:19). This corresponds better to the tree of life in Genesis. God was not afraid that Adam would eat of that tree and die or be punished, but rather that Adam would “put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen 3:22).The Book of revelation talks about the same tree differently, it shows the fruit of “the tree of life” as gift god will bestow at the end of time to those who will be in heaven deserving of it. Those deserving will be given the fruit of the tree of life and by deservingly eating of it dwell with god forever. But those who eat of it un-deservingly will perish in eternal torment. (Sounds familiar to me!)
M
mattkennel
Guest
Genesis 2:16-17 statesYou said, “He who eats of the tree of life receives everlasting life.” Did not God say don’t eat of tree or you will die? Also, didn’t Adam and Eve sin when they ate of the tree of life? They got kicked out of the garden of Eden didn’t they? How could they get eternal life when they got excluded from the garden of Eden. I’m confused here.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.””
It was from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Eve and Adam ate, and were condemned.
C
colliric
Guest
They would have eaten to their eternal damnation in the lake of fire.I’ve always wondered how things would have been different if Adam and Eve hadn’t listened to Satan and had eaten of the Tree of Life instead.
M
mattkennel
Guest
I infer from the text that man would have lived forever (although St. Thomas seems to disagree with this, at least in part).I’ve always wondered how things would have been different if Adam and Eve hadn’t listened to Satan and had eaten of the Tree of Life instead.
However, it certainly would not have led to damnation. Man was in a state of innocence. He had no command against eating the Tree of Life, as he had against eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, if he was innocent before eating of the Tree of Life, and he wasn’t breaking a command by eating of the Tree of Life, he would still have been innocent, and thus alive, after eating of the Tree of Life.
W
water
Guest
I remember the one figure in the Old Testament reminds me of the Cross is the Bronze snake that Moses made so that those who got bitten by snake would be healed by looking at the bronze snake.
C
colliric
Guest
Yes it would have, god did not desire that man should live forever until man’s soul has made it’s way into heaven. Just because one is without sin, doesn’t mean one cannot die and was not designed to die, just ask Mary, she was sinless and then died and was immediately taken up to heaven.I infer from the text that man would have lived forever (although St. Thomas seems to disagree with this, at least in part).
However, it certainly would not have led to damnation. Man was in a state of innocence. He had no command against eating the Tree of Life, as he had against eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, if he was innocent before eating of the Tree of Life, and he wasn’t breaking a command by eating of the Tree of Life, he would still have been innocent, and thus alive, after eating of the Tree of Life.
We are not supposed to live forever on the earth, we are supposed to join god in heaven after our physical deaths.
M
mattkennel
Guest
I agree 100% that man was eventually destined to go to heaven, and not to live a merely animal life. Yes, eventually man, even if he had not sinned, would have had his life transformed into spiritual life. As St. Augustine said in book XIII of the City of God, “Our first parents were so created that, if they had not sinned, they would not have been dismissed from their bodies by any death, but would have been endowed with immortality as the reward of their obedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies”
St. Thomas, in the article I linked to before, said “since the power of the tree of life was finite, man’s life was to be preserved for a definite time by partaking of it once; and when that time had elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to eat once more of the tree of life.”
This certainly seems to contradict the theory that eating the tree of life leads to eternal death.
This is corroborated by Gen 3:22, in which God fears that man after the fall might still gain bodily immortality by eating of the tree of life.
Also, with regard to our Blessed Mother, the Church does not actually teach that she died. Notice the careful language of Munificentissimus Deus, “having completed the course of her earthly life”. This language allows for the possibility that she died, but also for the possibility that she did not die.
St. Thomas, in the article I linked to before, said “since the power of the tree of life was finite, man’s life was to be preserved for a definite time by partaking of it once; and when that time had elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to eat once more of the tree of life.”
This certainly seems to contradict the theory that eating the tree of life leads to eternal death.
This is corroborated by Gen 3:22, in which God fears that man after the fall might still gain bodily immortality by eating of the tree of life.
Also, with regard to our Blessed Mother, the Church does not actually teach that she died. Notice the careful language of Munificentissimus Deus, “having completed the course of her earthly life”. This language allows for the possibility that she died, but also for the possibility that she did not die.
C
colliric
Guest
Your point of view on Genesis makes sense, thank you for explaining it.I agree 100% that man was eventually destined to go to heaven, and not to live a merely animal life. Yes, eventually man, even if he had not sinned, would have had his life transformed into spiritual life. As St. Augustine said in book XIII of the City of God, “Our first parents were so created that, if they had not sinned, they would not have been dismissed from their bodies by any death, but would have been endowed with immortality as the reward of their obedience, and would have lived eternally with their bodies”
St. Thomas, in the article I linked to before, said “since the power of the tree of life was finite, man’s life was to be preserved for a definite time by partaking of it once; and when that time had elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to eat once more of the tree of life.”
This certainly seems to contradict the theory that eating the tree of life leads to eternal death.
This is corroborated by Gen 3:22, in which God fears that man after the fall might still gain bodily immortality by eating of the tree of life.
Also, with regard to our Blessed Mother, the Church does not actually teach that she died. Notice the careful language of Munificentissimus Deus, “having completed the course of her earthly life”. This language allows for the possibility that she died, but also for the possibility that she did not die.
With regards to the blessed mother, My personal opinion is that she did die a natural death(Which is also the opinion of Apologist Karl Keating, at least in his book “Catholocism VS Fundamentalism”), however, since there is no record of her body being held on earth(which is actually quite odd for a historical person of her nature) she therefore, being 100% completely free from sin, was given by god(for having completed his plan) the prize that awaits the rest of us(The ones chosen by god) at the end of time. Assumption both bodily and spiritually into heaven.
B
bones_IV
Guest
But wasn’t the Tree of Knowledge supposed to represent the cross? Or was it the Tree of life? I’m confused here.Genesis 2:16-17 states
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.””
It was from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Eve and Adam ate, and were condemned.
C
colliric
Guest
No, the tree of life represents the cross in that it really represents Jesus(“I am the vine”), or more specifically It represents the salvation path he brought with him, though the fruit of the vine, which of cause is Grape, which as he says, when it is sanctified is his real blood, under the guise of grape and in turn, bread.But wasn’t the Tree of Knowledge supposed to represent the cross? Or was it the Tree of life? I’m confused here.
It is wholly representational of his salvation works, and the fruit of them, which have been given to us to partake of.
M
mattkennel
Guest
The Cross does correspond to the Tree of Knowledge in the same way that Jesus corresponds to Adam and Mary corresponds to Eve.But wasn’t the Tree of Knowledge supposed to represent the cross? Or was it the Tree of life? I’m confused here.
The good work of Jesus undoes the bad work of Adam.
The good work of Mary undoes the bad work of Eve.
The obedience upon the Tree of the Cross undoes the disobedience upon the Tree of Knowledge.
Adam chose the evil of the Tree of Knowledge. His body lived on for a few years, but his spirit died immediately.
Christ chose the good of the Cross, the Tree of Life. His body died, but his spirit was so alive that death could not even hold his body.
So, the cross corresponds to the Tree of Knowledge because it undoes the destructive work that the Tree of Knowledge wrought. But the Tree of Life is a type of the Cross, because just as the Tree of Life would have given Adam life had he chosen it instead of the Tree of Knowledge, so the Cross gives life because Christ chose to die upon it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.