What was the point of the Tree of Life?

[Sheepdog]

what strikes me as odd is that if physical death wasn't an issue prior to the fall, why was the Tree of Life planted in the Garden? apparently if Adam and Eve ate from it, they would live forever (Gen. 3:22). it isn't a contradiction, but... i'm not sure what role it would have played had they obeyed.


(off topic, ever notice how despite God's statement that they may eat from any tree save the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that they never were tempted to eat from the Tree of Life?)

[Undomiel]

Great topic.

I think they were able to eat freely from the Tree of Life. In fact, it was the Tree of Life that sustained them, or at least, that was my impression. When they fell, they were blocked from the Tree of Life so that their bodies would grow old and die. Remember the cherubim that blocked them from accessing the Tree of Life?

This section of the bible is just brimming with symbollism. It's amazing, really.

[Socrates]

John Ransom, who is even a Framework advocate not a 24-hour-day advocate, had a very good explanation at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=25903#post25903

[Undomiel]

More thoughts on the subject:

Whatever it was, it sustained their lives. It was a fountain of youth and will be again in New Jerusalem.

This has lead some to speculate that it changed us genetically, as did eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This makes perfect sense to me. We had perfect DNA, designed in God's image, with sustenance available to eat in the garden that kept our bodies from aging, but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, had the opposite effect. When God said, don't eat that, He meant, DON'T EAT THAT OR YOU WILL SCREW UP YOUR PERFECT BODIES I HAVE CREATED FOR YOU. ... ET. AL, you will surely die.

The real question here is, what in the heck was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil doing in the Garden in the first place, and in the midst of it no less.

Speculating on this has caused new, unusual religions to sprout up, one in particular that bothers me because it both makes sense and seems wrong is the Raelian religion. Rael, the founder of the religion, speculated that the entire creation episode was a recounting of a lab experiment in which "God" (who he claims was an astronaut of sorts), cloned himself and the information is just a scientist's explanation encoded in scripture, so that when the day arrived where we could understand it, we'd have the information on how and where we came from. The Tree of Life, he claims, is just a strand of DNA or something. This, of course, denies all the rest of creation. Therefore, it's an atheists evolutionary theory with a little scifi tossed in for good measure. Scary stuff.

[jason]

Today @ 08:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=311759#post311759)
Sheepdog:

what strikes me as odd is that if physical death wasn't an issue prior to the fall, why was the Tree of Life planted in the Garden?

Good Question.

One thing that is not covered in the text itself is what exactly the tree of life did.

Was it a one fruit and you life for ever sort of tree, or was it a, eat this regularly to live forever sort of tree.

They may have eaten from it. Who knows.

Jason

[Piebald]

As for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ...

1. It was for Shade only (my favorite answer)

2. God did not want to deny mankind one of the finest joys he could experience: the act of obediance to his maker achieved by simply not eating a piece of fruit. (taken from C.S. Lewis and his story Perelandra)

[trueseeker]

I don't think Adam and Eve or any of the physical creation was originally created exempt from physical death. Adam was charged to tend the garden, why would you tend something that would live forever on it's own? If an elephant stepped on a ant, or a bird or fish ate a fly, wouldn't they be killed? How would a world be that God told everything to be fruitful and multiply, but there was no death? Wouldn't it shortly be way over populated.

The death that Adam and Eve brought into the world by eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, I think was a spiritual death. And they died spiritually the day that they eat of it, just as God had promised.

Today we can gain the same kind of life the day that we accept Jesus, which compares to the death that we inherited from Adam. Jesus is the second Adam. He is also a spiritual, tree of life.

The tree of life, I think had the power to make us eternal beings. To at least make our souls eternal, perhaps make us physically eternal also, but I doubt it.

God in His mercy seperated us from the tree of life. If He had not everyone may have ended up having an eternal soul, not just those He allows to eat of the tree of life on the new earth.

Since mankind has not eaten from the tree of life God has retained the option to unmake the souls who choose not to be remade into His image and to enter into His kingdom.

Those who accept God's way to life through Jesus, will receive eternal life. Those who do not will receive a just amount of punishment according to their deeds and then will be unmade and go to eternal death. It is a great mercy that they have not eaten from the tree of life.

[Sheepdog]

Undomiel:

I think they were able to eat freely from the Tree of Life. In fact, it was the Tree of Life that sustained them, or at least, that was my impression.

it is possible, but disputable at the same time. God granted to them that the may eat any fruit except from the Tree of Knowledge. i would propose that all the fruit sustained them. although, i could see the Tree of Life being a perpetual life sustaining element.

the impression that i get is that they would have lived forever if the indeed at from the Tree of Life at all. Gen 3:22 seems to imply this, and indeed that if they did eat from it, it would have been the first time. but, it is pretty ambiguous.

When they fell, they were blocked from the Tree of Life so that their bodies would grow old and die. Remember the cherubim that blocked them from accessing the Tree of Life?

this makes sense in either view.

Socrates, that is an interesting perspective, but not sure how it would answer my initial question.

Undomiel:

The real question here is, what in the heck was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil doing in the Garden in the first place, and in the midst of it no less.

i think Romans covers this well, but i don't remember where. God allows sin would enter the world (implication: place the Tree where man can defiantly partake of it), and by sin entering the world, His grace would be revealed.

jason:

One thing that is not covered in the text itself is what exactly the tree of life did.

Was it a one fruit and you life for ever sort of tree, or was it a, eat this regularly to live forever sort of tree.

come to think of it and Undomiel ought to consider this as well: if that is the case, why didn't God explicitly tell them to eat from it, so they wouldn't die? if you pick the latter of the options you suggest, it seems that it opens a big can of worms.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Whether they could eat of it before the fall but did not, or if they needed to eat of it continually in order to live "forever" is not a question that needs answering as much as the question: what would have happened to them after the Fall had they partaken of it? Answering this, I believe, answers the former question.

Consider that Adam and Eve were not created physically IMMORTAL. If they were created physically immortal, then they would never have died physically, even after the curse.

God made mankind mortal from the beginning--but protected them somehow from physical death before the Fall.

So, before mankind sinned, in what supernatural way did God protect Adam and Eve from physical death since they were not originally created immortal?

Well, the scripture gives us a clue..."now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever--therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden...."

Whatever the case prior to the Fall, we know that after the Fall mankind could have eaten in his fallen state and "lived forever."

Now, if you take that "living forever" to mean some kind of spiritual life, I have to ask an important question: if it means spiritual life, then why did Christ have to die to give us spiritual life? Only the shedding of Christ's blood can give us spiritual life after the Fall and yet God was concerned enough about fallen man partaking of the Tree and "living forever" that He removed that real threat.

If it were not a real threat, they why did God speak as if it were a real threat? It was a real threat and God moved to stop the danger of man "living forever" in a fallen state. I take this to mean not spiritual life, but physical life. Since the Fall, spiritual life is only through Christ's sacrifice, the Tree could offer no such service. Therefore, the Tree's "life" was most likely physical since it was not spiritual.

Also, we must consider that the Tree of Life held, or will hold different properties in the future for we will partake of it in Heaven after we already have both spiritual life and immortal bodies through Christ. Even so, when it came to mortals on earth, the Tree's properties included physical life, IMO.

~Charleen

[BrianB]

I'll give my answer as I understand it.

Man is created in a temporary probationary state wherein he will be tested in order to show his allegiance to his creator, his suzerain king. He has at this point not proven his loyalty to Yahweh, but if/when he does he will be given a further blessing of 'eternal life' meaning glorification and even greater communion with Yahweh. (think our state of glorification, which will be better than what Adam and Eve had before the Fall)

His duty is to guard the holy sanctuary (the garden) against the unclean, namely an evil intruder.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE) is the definitive probationary test whereby man is tempted to the fullest and given the opportunity to show his loyalty to Yahweh in the face of ultimate temptation.

The Tree of Life is the reward for a successful passing of the probationary test. If man is loyal, he will be rewarded with glorification/eternal-life as symbolized (and brought about by) the eating from the ToL.

Since the probationary test is focused on the TKGE, no mention of a prohibition against eating the ToL is made because it is not in the focus. Its being the reward for passing the test is understood and implied, so it was not to be eaten until after the successful completion of the test.

Summary: It (specifically, what it pointed to) was the reward for the successful completion of the probationary test whereby mankind should have judged the unclean intruder and sentenced him to hell in loyalty to his creator Lord.

Regards,
Brian

[A Beautiful Truth]

That sounds great, Brian--but what would have happened to Adam had he eaten of it after he sinned?

~Charleen

[BrianB]

Yesterday @ 10:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333532#post333532)
Charleen Lohman:

That sounds great, Brian--but what would have happened to Adam had he eaten of it after he sinned?

~Charleen

Hi Charleen,

You ask a good question. :) To be honest I'm not sure that we can really answer it. I can give a hypothetical, but that's all it is. So, here's my try at an answer in a round-about way.

We know that man fell under the curse of God at the Fall. How was the curse to be overcome? Through the death of the messiah, who would bear the curse in his body on the tree (interesting tree link, no?). If man ate of the ToL after he sinned, he would not have been capable of physical death, and no one could have died the sacrificial death that Jesus did in order to redeem humanity. Thus, no redemption possible. This was why it was so important to prevent him from eating of the ToL. If man had eaten of the tree he would have had to live under the curse of God forever with no chance of redemption.

Did the Mosaic-era Jews know this was the reason? Hmmm. I dunno. If they didn't, what would they have understood to be the reason why man had to be prevented from eating of the ToL? Maybe just a "no obedience, no reward" law required for Yahweh to be just. There are lots of questions here and I've few potential answers, but there ya go.

Regards,
Brian

(Oh yeah, Go Redwings!)

[Paul]

Yes as I mentioned in the other thread, the Church Fathers thought that Adam and Eve's gift of immortality was transmitted through the Tree of Life.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I agree that the Tree of Life offered them enduring physical life. This means that they were not created immortal in the Garden, they were mortal from their creation.

Animals, likewise were created mortal from the beginning, but they were not offered the Tree of Life. *Could* they, then, have experienced death pre fall?

[Paul]

Today @ 08:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335136#post335136)
Charleen Lohman:

I agree that the Tree of Life offered them enduring physical life. This means that they were not created immortal in the Garden, they were mortal from their creation.

Animals, likewise were created mortal from the beginning, but they were not offered the Tree of Life. *Could* they, then, have experienced death pre fall?

Now you've got me thinking :eek:

As I've already said I think animals and plants could have died but in a way harmonious with the paradise such that there was no disfigurement whatsoever of the world in which Adam and Eve lived. So wherever Adam and Eve looked they saw a harmonious reflection of the invisible glory of God.

May I ask Charleen, do you agree that there was no human suffering before the Fall? I ask because you seemed to think Adam and Eve may have excreted solid waste before the Fall. Buf if there was no human suffering before the Fall, how could that be? Wouldn't the smell have caused them a little suffering? I'm being serious.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I probably need to ask how you interpret "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth..." Gen. 3:16?

If pain were zero before the Fall, then to "multiply" pain times zero means the curse was meaningless and we women don't really have pain in childbirth, we are just putting all of you guys on. :wink:

[Paul]

Hi Charleen,

That was a good joke :smile:

Or were you being serious? :eek:

God says: "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." So the second clause makes clear I think that there was no pain before. And God goes on to mention how the man will suffer also.

And why would God have Adam and Eve suffer pre-Fall when there was no sin of man for God to punish? God punished Adam's sin in his descendants and Christ took on all the consequences of Adam's sin on the Cross and made reparation for it and all our sins. God doesn't cause someone to suffer when he or his family (like the family of Adam to which we all belong) are faultless. Or do you believe that Adam or Eve sinned pre-Fall? :huh: Isn't the definition of the Fall Adam's first sin?

Charleen I know you say that we fit "science" to fit our understanding of Genesis. But I think it seems to a lot of us that you guys and gals try to fit "Genesis" into your understanding of "science"! Do you see what I mean? It's all pretty ironic. It cuts both ways.

Let me add that I enjoy your posts and as I mentioned in another thread I liked what you had to say about Adam's being a gardener though maybe our understanding differed a little on the details. That was something new that you taught me and so I am grateful for that :smile:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335481#post335481)
Paul:

Hi Charleen,

That was a good joke :smile:

Or were you being serious? :eek:

God says: "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." So the second clause makes clear I think that there was no pain before.

But I still wonder about interpretation on the first part about "multiplying" pain.


And why would God have Adam and Eve suffer pre-Fall when there was no sin of man for God to punish?

You assume that pain is a consquence of sin whereas I think that a multiplication of pain is a consequence of sin.

Pain, Paul, is a gift from God that helps us while we are in our physically mortal state. At the resurrection, we will have bodies like Christ that are no longer corruptable. Remember, Adam and Eve were not created like the angels, never able to die--no--man was made mortal from the beginning, that is why the Tree of Life, was made accessable for him, IMO.

Or do you believe that Adam or Eve sinned pre-Fall?

No, of course. Again, you assume that pain is a consequence of sin where I believe increased pain is a consequence for sin.

Charleen I know you say that we fit "science" to fit our understanding of Genesis. But I think it seems to a lot of us that you guys and gals try to fit "Genesis" into your understanding of "science"! Do you see what I mean? It's all pretty ironic. It cuts both ways.

No, I do not believe I fit the scriptures into my understanding of science but I do believe that the general revelation and special revelation always agree because God made both. As God does not lie, He is not going to lie to the scientists--He will make a way for them to see the truth. As it is, the only scientists who believe in a young earth are they who also believe the scripturs mandate them to believe so. Again, this is not the same with evolution. (I always make that point about evolution because I believe some Christians actually believe that those science guys have some conspiracy going where they hide all the evidence they see for a young earth. But if I am right that they just don't see it, then the scriptures are not right that says that the "heavens declare the glory of God" because only the YEC scientist would see that and none of those awful big bangers would. But it is not so. God has become a hot topic in the realm of astronomy and it is becaue His handiwork is evidenced--even in the belief that the universe is billions of years old and the earth is old, too. "Ancient" as the scriptures themselves say.


Let me add that I enjoy your posts and as I mentioned in another thread I liked what you had to say about Adam's being a gardener though maybe our understanding differed a little on the details. That was something new that you taught me and so I am grateful for that :smile:

Paul, you have such a gentle way of looking at things. I appreciate your posts as well and I do not mind conceeding a lot to you because I do believe that the Garden was indeed a miraculous place. The Garden had boundaries, however, and I believe it was man's orginal job to subdue the earth and plant out the Garden and bring those properties to the rest of the earth. Man failed and with that failure came the earth's subjection to futility and slavery to man's sinfully corrupt rule over it.

But there were differences, even in the Garden, obviously, and we agreed on many of those differences in the thread you started.

~Charleen

[spl_cadet]

I would suspect it to be a metaphor for the immortality of the body prior the Fall. Perhaps there was an actual tree with the name of "The Tree of Life," but I suspect the fruit of it didn't actually do anything.

[HisNibbs]

Tree of knowledge represents the Law which brought the knowledge of good & evil and offered man the challenge of being like God but independant from God... but if God is good why do this ? man of course fails and the tree of Life is his way back, it represents Jesus. One eats that Life when one receives His Life as given at Pentecost:-
Acts 1:4: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
:33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

. . . . . if you have not received this, do not defer !
Proverbs 13:12: Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335652#post335652)
spl_cadet:

I would suspect it to be a metaphor for the immortality of the body prior the Fall. Perhaps there was an actual tree with the name of "The Tree of Life," but I suspect the fruit of it didn't actually do anything.

I wonder, how do you interpret, then, what God *really* meant when He sounded concerned enough to take away access to the Tree after man fell? He gave the reason, "lest he live forever", what do you think that must metaphorically mean?

~Charleen

[EdJones]

Genesis 2
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

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

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 02:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336114#post336114)
EdJones:

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

This is a good point. I think that whatever the properties of the Tree of Life, for mortal men it possessed the power to give life to mortal flesh.

However, in Heaven, of course, we can no longer die for we will have been resurrected to incorruptable bodies. The Tree of Life, then, must provide much more than just giving physical life to mortal flesh.

But for our discussion here, I think it is helpful to narrow to what we can discern from its application to mortal flesh, which is "lest he eat and live forever...."

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 05:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336102#post336102)
Charleen Lohman:



I wonder, how do you interpret, then, what God *really* meant when He sounded concerned enough to take away access to the Tree after man fell? He gave the reason, "lest he live forever", what do you think that must metaphorically mean?

~Charleen

As Paul pointed out on AIM last night, it may have been a type, or prefiguring, of the tree on which Christ died. If such is the case, then it's self-evident what is denied.

However, I would suggest that, following from the earlier theory, that He was talking about communion and union with Him, metaphorically.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336205#post336205)
spl_cadet:



As Paul pointed out on AIM last night

spl_cadet,

Please forgive my being uninformed, but what is "AIM"

, it may have been a type, or prefiguring, of the tree on which Christ died. If such is the case, then it's self-evident what is denied.

I am not the brightest apple, could you please explain "then it's self-evident what is denied"

However, I would suggest that, following from the earlier theory, that He was talking about communion and union with Him, metaphorically.

So, communion and union with Him was attainable actually and also metaphoriacally in the Garden? So when man fell, he lost the actual communion with God and died in his sin that very moment, and then God wanted him to lose the metaphorical life with Him as well and to die metaphorically. So, because mankind was not able to stretch out his hand and take and eat of the Tree of Life, he was then able to die metaphorically as well as spiritually.

So, there was no actual concern in breaking Adam's connection with the Tree, it was just to show metaphorically that Adam "would not live forever" metaphorically.

I think I understand your view, but I think that it is at least reasonable to believe that the Tree actually offered physical life, given the wording, "and now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...." This, in addition to the consideration that mankind was created physically mortal and in need of sustainment and, from these verses, it is reasonable to assume that it was the Tree of Life that offered him the life.

I think it is reasonable to believe that man died spiritually that very day and became dead in his trespasses and sins and later died physically because he could no longer "stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.."

~Charleen

[spl_cadet]

spl_cadet,

Please forgive my being uninformed, but what is "AIM"


AOL Instant Messenger.


I am not the brightest apple, could you please explain "then it's self-evident what is denied"


The union with God.



So, communion and union with Him was attainable actually and also metaphoriacally in the Garden? So when man fell, he lost the actual communion with God and died in his sin that very moment, and then God wanted him to lose the metaphorical life with Him as well and to die metaphorically. So, because mankind was not able to stretch out his hand and take and eat of the Tree of Life, he was then able to die metaphorically as well as spiritually.


Metaphorically=spiritually in this case.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336345#post336345)
spl_cadet:




Metaphorically=spiritually in this case.

Please spell this out for me a little clearer. Do you mean to say that metaphorically dying by losing acess to the Tree was metaphorically dying spiritually?

If mankind had continued to have access to the tree, then, would he have metaphorically remained spiritualy alive? So to ensure man would not have metaphorical spiritual life he was denied access to the Tree, is this right?

~Charleen