What does the forbidden fruit symbolize?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kancharles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kancharles

Guest
God forbade Adam from eating this fruit. Other than calling it the tree of knowledge of the good and evil, does it have other deeper interpretations? It seems like a mystery to me. Any thoughts? Thank you.
 
Since there is no good reason to assume it wasn’t really fruit, we must assume it was just that, in accord with Catholic teaching. Otherwise, it could mean anything. The Catechism of Trent says it was simply fruit as well. It seems like a simple mistake, but…
 
kancharles said:
God forbade Adam from eating this fruit. Other than calling it the tree of knowledge of the good and evil, does it have other deeper interpretations? It seems like a mystery to me. Any thoughts? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Everyone focuses on this tree and it’s fruit with whatever theological meanings you want to illuminate it with.

Hardly anyone ever cares about the other tree they were not forbidden to eat from.

I guess it is overlooked because there is no drama or poetry to be had there.

I think it is funny because everyone ends up getting eternity. So why the other tree?

Back to the forbidden fruit.

Is this the fruit in a literal sense?

It does not matter what theological speculation you can spin on this one because God outright commanded it was something to never think about touching let alone eating.
Speculation could be construed as touching in this case IMHO.
 
In the first place, it refers to the sovereignty of God, to make rule or commands.

It establishes a boundary between God and man. Interesting that this boundary was first expressed in dietary terms. Although there would have been much food for Adam and Eve to sustain themselves with – and would have needed to sustain themselves with – God defines Himself in a new way, through this command.

This was a negative commandment to them, as much as eating of the tree of life was a positive command.

On the EWTN program “Our Father’s Plan” (I think that program is more than 10 years old), Dr. Scott Hahn points out that eating of the forbidden fruit was a violation or breaking of the covenant between God and Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve constituted the Church. This was a covenant. Adam was king and priest.

The Hebrew verbs that describe how Adam was supposed to work in and tend the garden are the same verbs that are later used to describe the actions of the Aaaronic priests in woking in the tabernacle. The word that is translated as serpent is the same word that is elsewhere translated as a large beast or leviathan. The translation gives us the interpretation that it was a snake.

Adam was supposed to have human sovereignty over all the animals of creation, but he did not exert that sovereignty over the beast.

I suppose that the food that they ate was supposed to remind them of the word of God that they heard – sounds like the Eucharist.
 
When was Adam or Eve commaned to Eat of the Tree of Life? When?
They get eternity anyway, so it really does not matter much does it?
 
OK, perhaps the word command is too strong but God told Adam that if he ate of the tree of life that he would live. There certainly is a “contract” perhaps even a covenant embedded in that, that makes it virtually a command – this is what God wanted of them, wasn’t it? He wanted them to eat of that tree – another dietary command, by the way.

By their obedience, they would live.
 
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Click to expand...
Genesis 3:5-7 I have read that the sin was the desire for knowledge that would make them independent of God.
 
The best talk I heard on this topic was actually JD Jakes on TV. He began with the question, “What did Eve eat?” The answer was “a lie.” Adam & Eve lived in innocent relationship to one another. Once the “lie” from Satan was accepted, men and women began to have relationship issues. They no longer trusted each other. Nakedness is a sign of vulnerability. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they clothed themselves, hiding their true selves from one another, and trying to hide from God.
 
Scott Hahn said that age old theology has pointed toward Adam’s inability to protect and sacrifice for the family that God gave to him (both the garden and his wife).

Eve’s sin compiled Adam’s sin, choosing individuality over God’s will and family.

Jesus and Mary - through His sacrifice and her magnificat - corrected the original imbalance that humanity followed since the sin of Adam and Eve.
 
I believe some people are of the opinion that it represented a sexual sin of some sort. This stems from the fact that our sexual inclinations are the hardest to control and a sexual sin would have struck at the very heart of God because sex between a married couple is supposed to be the ultimate expression of the love within the Trinity. It would be a strike at the very essence of how God has created us in his image and likeness.
 
We are studying Genesis in Bible Study; it has taken 7 weeks to just get thru the first 3 chapters using the Ignatious Bible Study; it has been enlightening.
As for the fruit involved, I have heard it referred to an apple, a fig and a pomengranate. Our instructor said it best; it really doesn’t matter, and we will never know because we were not there. The important things to learn:
  1. Adam & Eve disobeyed a direct order from God, the only one he gave to them.
  2. Adam shirked his role as guardian by keeping silent while Eve spoke with the Serpent.
  3. Eve shirked her role as Adam’s helpmate by usurping his role and speaking with the Serpent.
  4. Neither one asked for God’s help.
  5. Adam & Eve knew right from wrong from the beginning, the result of having a rational mind. The result of eating the fruit was that Adam and Eve mistakenly believe that they have the right to determine what is good and evil, which decision God reserves to himself.
    Adam & Eve sinned not only by disobeying God, but by trying to make themselves the equal of God.
 
Crumpy said:
OK, perhaps the word command is too strong but God told Adam that if he ate of the tree of life that he would live. There certainly is a “contract” perhaps even a covenant embedded in that, that makes it virtually a command – this is what God wanted of them, wasn’t it? He wanted them to eat of that tree – another dietary command, by the way.

By their obedience, they would live.
Click to expand...
He told them that if they ate of the tree of good and evil that they would die. So they knew of death.
Afterwards, when kicking them out, He says they need to leave before they eat of the tree of life, otherwise they will live forever.
He never commanded them not to eat of the tree of life, apparently they had not the chance to do so before they screwed up.
 
“You will be like God.” Lucifer in Genesis 3:5

OUCH

Jesus said of Lucifer (John 8:44) “He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
 
StrawberryJam said:
Everyone focuses on this tree and it’s fruit with whatever theological meanings you want to illuminate it with.

Hardly anyone ever cares about the other tree they were not forbidden to eat from.

I guess it is overlooked because there is no drama or poetry to be had there.

I think it is funny because everyone ends up getting eternity. So why the other tree?

Back to the forbidden fruit.

Is this the fruit in a literal sense?

It does not matter what theological speculation you can spin on this one because God outright commanded it was something to never think about touching let alone eating.
Speculation could be construed as touching in this case IMHO.
Click to expand...
God never ordered them to not even touch the tree; this was added by Eve in her conversation with the serpent; God never told them to not speculate about why he gave the command, nor did he order them not to ask Him. At any time Adam or Eve could have asked Him for guidance, but they never did. Nor did they ever ask forgiveness, just tried to blame the other for the sin.
 
Eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience against the creator, the only being who possessed the infinite wisdom and goodness necessary to determine good and evil, right from wrong. As a result, we fell into a world where the evil of Gods absence (since He was effectively rejected as their God), along with the good of His creation, are experienced-or* known*. As He’s revealed His existence and goodness and love through the history of His chosen people, the Jews, culminating in the ultimate revelation by the Incarnation of Christ, we have the opportunity to run, like Prodigals, from the evil we witness in our world and in ourselves at times, and towards the good that is God alone. We must acknowledge our limitations, our moral obligation, our need for God.

**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. **
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
Fasting from something out of love for god; sacrificing to show love of God through obedience, over love of self.

sadly, we failed the test, and here we are.
 
beehumble said:
Fasting from something out of love for god; sacrificing to show love of God through obedience, over love of self.

sadly, we failed the test, and here we are.
Click to expand...
They had nothing but a desire to live. To make them sound as if they were not able to Fast (who taught them to?) is to disrespect their ability to do so.
I can fast if a catholic during lent, because I understand why I would be doing so.
No where in the bible does God explain his reasons. They must blindly obey.
He tells them they will die, but they dont know what that even means.
 
StrawberryJam said:
No where in the bible does God explain his reasons. They must blindly obey.
Click to expand...
God isn’t required to explain Himself to us. He is God after all. Consider the example of Abraham. He was ready to blindly obey and sacrifice Isaac without being given a thorough explanation from God.

"Then he believed in the LORD; and the LORD credited it to him as righteousness." Gen 15:6 And I realize this verse occurs before the Isaac sacrifice story, but it shows that Abraham already had the correct frame of mind…plus it’s a verse we’re probably all heard before. 😉

Abraham is a clear example of what God wants us to do, which is blindly obey.

As someone else pointed out, Adam and Eve could have also asked God for guidance on this if they were confused, but they didn’t. They chose to be their own gods and make their own rules. So before they had even eaten the fruit with their bodies, they had already eaten it with their hearts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top