The Tree of Wisdom

[juvenissun]

The more I understand the Christian doctrine, the more I feel the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a critical key to everything else.

Think about these questions:

Why is such a tree there at the first place?
Why is this the only tree that Adam and Eve can not touch its fruit?
What would the situation be if Adam and Eve did NOT take the fruit of this tree? Is the sin inevitable because the existence of satan?
This tree makes Adam and Eve fall. But it is a good tree, what did Adam and Eve get by eating its fruit? How would that benefit Adam and Eve?
We inherited the sin of Adam, but we also inherited the effect of the forbidden fruit. How would that make us different in the era of salvation?
Did angels eat the fruit of this tree? Do they need this tree in order to know?
Would the effect of this fruit still be with us in the Heaven?
Hallelujah

 

[Joykins]

You can't do wrong unless you know that there is a right or wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hey Juve, why don't you go back to the "What if you are God" thread and answer the question "So is Jesus not God?"

 

[juvenissun]

You can't do wrong unless you know that there is a right or wrong.

So, why do we want to know right or wrong at the first place?

 

[Willtor]

The more I understand the Christian doctrine, the more I feel the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a critical key to everything else.

Think about these questions:

Why is such a tree there at the first place?
Why is this the only tree that Adam and Eve can not touch its fruit?
What would the situation be if Adam and Eve did NOT take the fruit of this tree? Is the sin inevitable because the existence of satan?
This tree makes Adam and Eve fall. But it is a good tree, what did Adam and Eve get by eating its fruit? How would that benefit Adam and Eve?
We inherited the sin of Adam, but we also inherited the effect of the forbidden fruit. How would that make us different in the era of salvation?
Did angels eat the fruit of this tree? Do they need this tree in order to know?
Would the effect of this fruit still be with us in the Heaven?
Hallelujah

Some people (e.g., John Calvin) argue that Adam had the option not to eat the fruit. In this case, humanity would not have fallen and we would still be living in paradise. Some people (e.g., C.S. Lewis) argue for a "fortunate fall" in which we are able to be raised up higher because we know good from evil. In this view, as you question, some of the effect of the fruit would remain with us forever.

I think the story describes identifying one's source either in God or in oneself. The Tree of Life represents the wisdom of God. This draws a strong parallel between the Tree of Life and the Word of God in Whom we have true life. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents finding one's origin in oneself. They're identified as exclusive choices (one cannot eat from both trees) because there is no half-ways in fellowship with God. The story, I think, indicates the self-realization of man in that he is able to reflect on his actions and do as he pleases. Eventually, he chooses his own path and becomes his own understanding of good and evil and loses step with God and other men and nature.

This view is mostly what I've gotten from St. Athanasius, and developed a bit in Bonhoeffer.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the story describes identifying one's source either in God or in oneself. The Tree of Life represents the wisdom of God. This draws a strong parallel between the Tree of Life and the Word of God in Whom we have true life. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents finding one's origin in oneself. They're identified as exclusive choices (one cannot eat from both trees) because there is no half-ways in fellowship with God. The story, I think, indicates the self-realization of man in that he is able to reflect on his actions and do as he pleases. Eventually, he chooses his own path and becomes his own understanding of good and evil and loses step with God and other men and nature.

So according to this view, the Tree of Life shows God's wisdom and the Tree of Knowledge caused human to become self righteous. And Adam could not take the fruit of BOTH trees, provided that God did not forbid Adam from the fruit of the Tree of Life and I think Adam must have quite a bit already.

Don't you think that they added quite a bit additional (and unnecessary) interpretations to this description? What is wrong if the Tree of Life simply represents the eternal life and Tree of Knowledge represents God's wisdom, which is suggested by the snake (satan) to Eve? In this case, satan told the very truth.

 

[Joykins]

So, why do we want to know right or wrong at the first place?

It is an inevitability.

 

[Willtor]

So according to this view, the Tree of Life shows God's wisdom and the Tree of Knowledge caused human to become self righteous. And Adam could not take the fruit of BOTH trees, provided that God did not forbid Adam from the fruit of the Tree of Life and I think Adam must have quite a bit already.

Quite a bit of what?

Don't you think that they added quite a bit additional (and unnecessary) interpretations to this description? What is wrong if the Tree of Life simply represents the eternal life and Tree of Knowledge represents God's wisdom, which is suggested by the snake (satan) to Eve? In this case, satan told the very truth.

It's true that it reads Christ quite a lot into the story, but I think that was the tendency of the early Church and I think it was perfectly appropriate (usually).

 

[crawfish]

Don't you think that they added quite a bit additional (and unnecessary) interpretations to this description? What is wrong if the Tree of Life simply represents the eternal life and Tree of Knowledge represents God's wisdom, which is suggested by the snake (satan) to Eve? In this case, satan told the very truth.

I think I'd have to agree with this. The confusing part to me is the tree of life, though. You have A&E, presumably immortal living in the garden of Eden, and there is a tree that grants eternal life? A tree that, unless they eat of the tree of knowledge, is impotent? A tree that has power to grant eternal life even if the creator doesn't want them to have it?

I prefer to think of the two trees as a choice. One choice - represented by the tree of life - is eternal life with God in purity and innocence. The second choice - represented by the tree of knowledge - is the loss of innocence, the choice of freedom and responsibility. A&E would not have been allowed to eat of both.

 

[juvenissun]

I think I'd have to agree with this. The confusing part to me is the tree of life, though. You have A&E, presumably immortal living in the garden of Eden, and there is a tree that grants eternal life? A tree that, unless they eat of the tree of knowledge, is impotent? A tree that has power to grant eternal life even if the creator doesn't want them to have it?

I prefer to think of the two trees as a choice. One choice - represented by the tree of life - is eternal life with God in purity and innocence. The second choice - represented by the tree of knowledge - is the loss of innocence, the choice of freedom and responsibility. A&E would not have been allowed to eat of both.

OK, here is the point to focus. Both you and Willtor suggested that Adam could NOT eat fruit from both trees.

According to the Scripture without adding interpretations, this view is not true. Adam can (and I believe he did) eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. And he also ate the fruit of the other tree by disobeying.

The logic which works for me is that no matter how many fruits of Tree of Life did Adam eat, it does not guarantee his eternal life IF Adam disobeyed. So the effect of the forbidden tree negates the effect of Tree of Life. But AFTER Adam disobeyed, and if he ate the fruit of Tree of Life AGAIN, then Adam would have both God's wisdom and eternal life. And he would be like God.

I did not interpret anything. All I said is a literal understanding recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. It makes a perfect logic sense to me and no additional elaborated interpretation is needed.

My actual point is NOT on the argument above. But is on the nature of the Tree of Knowledge. In fact, I prefer to call it the Tree of Wisdom. The forbidden tree is about the wisdom of God. Surprisingly, the wisdom of God can be express in such a simple way, just being able to tell good from evil. Because of Adam's mistake, we have the ability now (can't resist here: which monkey does not have). In fact, if you think about it: Angels do not have this simple ability either. Is that amazing?

 

[crawfish]

OK, here is the point to focus. Both you and Willtor suggested that Adam could NOT eat fruit from both trees.

According to the Scripture without adding interpretations, this view is not true. Adam can (and I believe he did) eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. And he also ate the fruit of the other tree by disobeying.

Actually, the "literal" interpretation would be "we don't know", because we're not told either way. We're not told he ate of the tree of life; we're not told that he didn't.

I'm certainly not dogmatic in my personal view; I just happen to believe that the powerful symbolism behind this scripture supports the "choice" claim most strongly. The key question in this whole story is, "why are we separated from God?" And I believe the answer is, "we chose temporal knowledge over eternal innocence". Perhaps you could go one step further and consider Christ the one who has given us access to the tree of life again; but I'm a bit uncomfortable with that much allegory right now.

The logic which works for me is that no matter how many fruits of Tree of Life did Adam eat, it does not guarantee his eternal life IF Adam disobeyed. So the effect of the forbidden tree negates the effect of Tree of Life. But AFTER Adam disobeyed, and if he ate the fruit of Tree of Life AGAIN, then Adam would have both God's wisdom and eternal life. And he would be like God.

Still doesn't explain the obvious problem: why would God create a tree so powerful that He himself couldn't or wouldn't undo its effects?

And, again, it cannot be a literal view because it goes beyond the text. What we know: there were two special trees, and A&E ate of the one they were told not to eat of. Beyond that is just speculation.

I did not interpret anything. All I said is a literal understanding recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. It makes a perfect logic sense to me and no additional elaborated interpretation is needed.

you tell me that you're doing no interpretation; yet you've made assumptions and added information that goes beyond the biblical account. Why does "perfect logical sense" to you necessarily mean that it's true?

This seems to be consistent with most YEC thinking. You say you're taking the scriptures purely literally, but you're adding information to make your own theology work. THAT IS INTERPRETATION. And it's not necessarily wrong.

My actual point is NOT on the argument above. But is on the nature of the Tree of Knowledge. In fact, I prefer to call it the Tree of Wisdom. The forbidden tree is about the wisdom of God. Surprisingly, the wisdom of God can be express in such a simple way, just being able to tell good from evil. Because of Adam's mistake, we have the ability now (can't resist here: which monkey does not have). In fact, if you think about it: Angels do not have this simple ability either. Is that amazing?

Of course it's amazing. And no TE believes that a monkey has such ability; we fully believe that humans have been set aside in God's spiritual image.

 

[gluadys]

OK, here is the point to focus. Both you and Willtor suggested that Adam could NOT eat fruit from both trees.

According to the Scripture without adding interpretations, this view is not true. Adam can (and I believe he did) eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. And he also ate the fruit of the other tree by disobeying.

The logic which works for me is that no matter how many fruits of Tree of Life did Adam eat, it does not guarantee his eternal life IF Adam disobeyed. So the effect of the forbidden tree negates the effect of Tree of Life. But AFTER Adam disobeyed, and if he ate the fruit of Tree of Life AGAIN, then Adam would have both God's wisdom and eternal life. And he would be like God.

I did not interpret anything. All I said is a literal understanding recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis. It makes a perfect logic sense to me and no additional elaborated interpretation is needed.

My actual point is NOT on the argument above. But is on the nature of the Tree of Knowledge. In fact, I prefer to call it the Tree of Wisdom. The forbidden tree is about the wisdom of God. Surprisingly, the wisdom of God can be express in such a simple way, just being able to tell good from evil. Because of Adam's mistake, we have the ability now (can't resist here: which monkey does not have). In fact, if you think about it: Angels do not have this simple ability either. Is that amazing?

Neither interpretation is taking account of Gen.3:22.

This would indicate that Adam could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life even after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and would, in that case, live forever, even though he had disobeyed.

Hence the way to the Tree of Life had to be barred to him.

So Willtor is incorrect in saying Adam could not eat of both trees.

And Juvie is wrong in saying the Tree of Life would not give eternal life if Adam disobeyed.

Both of these statements are contradicted by Gen. 3:22.

 

[juvenissun]

Neither interpretation is taking account of Gen.3:22.

This would indicate that Adam could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life even after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and would, in that case, live forever, even though he had disobeyed.

Hence the way to the Tree of Life had to be barred to him.

So Willtor is incorrect in saying Adam could not eat of both trees.

And Juvie is wrong in saying the Tree of Life would not give eternal life if Adam disobeyed.

Both of these statements are contradicted by Gen. 3:22.

Gen 3:22, indeed, is the key. It indicates a "sequence" which must not happen. It is not simply a combination. It is a sequence. Which is exactly what I said.

 

[juvenissun]

you tell me that you're doing no interpretation; yet you've made assumptions and added information that goes beyond the biblical account. Why does "perfect logical sense" to you necessarily mean that it's true?

Yes, I did add one piece of interpretation into it. But only one. And I said I believed it happened, not it did happen.

However, it is a logical implication. And to my reasoning, it would almost be true.

1. God says: you may eat fruit of all trees, except the tree of wisdom.
2. God put Tree of Life in the Garden

What do you think Adam would do to the fruit on the Tree of Life? Why should it be different from any other tree?

 

[Mallon]

Why did Adam need to eat from the Tree of Life to begin with? I've never heard a neocreationist answer this question.

 

[Willtor]

Neither interpretation is taking account of Gen.3:22.

This would indicate that Adam could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life even after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and would, in that case, live forever, even though he had disobeyed.

Hence the way to the Tree of Life had to be barred to him.

So Willtor is incorrect in saying Adam could not eat of both trees.

And Juvie is wrong in saying the Tree of Life would not give eternal life if Adam disobeyed.

Both of these statements are contradicted by Gen. 3:22.

Well, obviously God prevented him. I didn't mean to suggest that he was not eating from the Tree of Life prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But I expressed it badly/wrongly. I should have said that he couldn't have it both ways.

 

[crawfish]

Yes, I did add one piece of interpretation into it. But only one. And I said I believed it happened, not it did happen.

However, it is a logical implication. And to my reasoning, it would almost be true.

1. God says: you may eat fruit of all trees, except the tree of wisdom.
2. God put Tree of Life in the Garden

What do you think Adam would do to the fruit on the Tree of Life? Why should it be different from any other tree?

You still haven't answered my question on why it was needed in the first place.

As to what Adam would do about the fruit of the tree of life - we aren't told. Perhaps the fruit of the tree of life is like the "straight and narrow path" we encounter today, in that it didn't appear as appealing as the alternative. Perhaps the fruit wasn't pleasing to the eye. What we DO know is that it WAS different from any other tree, because God called attention to it. He wouldn't have needed to block them from it had they not known about it.

On that note - you'll see that there was enough time after eating the fruit for A&E to make some rudimentary covering, before God came looking for them...why didn't they make a beeline for the other tree?

Your minimalist approach to this scripture is fine, except that you must admit in that case that there are things you simply cannot know. God is maddeningly unclear about many of the details.

 

[juvenissun]

Still doesn't explain the obvious problem: why would God create a tree so powerful that He himself couldn't or wouldn't undo its effects?

Very good question. However I think I addressed it in questions of my OP. God can certainly undo it. But He does not for a wonderful purpose.

A short answer is: WE need the wisdom (to work) in the Kingdom of God. And we got it from Adam and Eve, which is the best way to make sure that only the right type of people can get to Heaven with the wisdom.

It is simply a super duper design. Adam and Eve got the wisdom, but lost their life. But all human get the wisdom as a result. A few of us get the life back via Jesus. So we will have both wisdom and life (like God) again in the Heaven. Which is what God likes to see at the beginning. satan, in fact, contributed to the success of this design without knowing it at the beginning. If we defeated satan on earth by faith, we certainly can beat any evil anywhere at any time.

 

[juvenissun]

Your minimalist approach to this scripture is fine, except that you must admit in that case that there are things you simply cannot know. God is maddeningly unclear about many of the details.

I never said I know. I am reasoning.

The fact that we can reason is an immediate effect of the inherited wisdom comes from Adam and Eve. So, brother, do not underestimate yourself. We HAVE God's wisdom. That is why can we understand (interpret) the reason that God does this and does not do that without reading His explicit words. That is also how could we work much better than angels do in the Heaven. And, that is exactly why Jesus says: the Kingdom is OURS.

 

[Willtor]

I never said I know. I am reasoning.

The fact that we can reason is an immediate effect of the inherited wisdom comes from Adam and Eve. So, brother, do not underestimate yourself. We HAVE God's wisdom. That is why can we understand (interpret) the reason that God does this and does not do that without reading His explicit words. That is also how could we work much better than angels do in the Heaven. And, that is exactly why Jesus says: the Kingdom is OURS.

If the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not really the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but actually the Tree of God's Wisdom, then how is it that we still needed God's Wisdom Incarnate? It seems as though God has made every provision to offer His Wisdom freely. How was it then that Adam was forbidden?