The Two Trees in the Garden and what this means for us?

[MahogonySnail]

With the book of Genesis we so often use it to try and prove a 6 day creation + 1 debating evolutionists. But we may miss the wonderful imagery and symbolism in Genesis that points to Christ if we don't put our "spiritual thinking hats" on when reading Genesis, and merely use it as a weapon against evolution.

So here is one theory about the two important trees in the Garden of Eden.

There were two very important trees in the Garden of Eden. One, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the other the tree of Life.


Gen 2:9 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.


What or who is the tree of Life?

This tree is also mentioned in Revelation:

Rev 22:2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

I believe it is Christ His person.
That Christ is our nourishment and life, and this tree, Christ, will nourish and sustain God's people in the New Jerusalem. We can "eat" of this Tree, by obeying Christ's commands and doctrine, and growing in experiential knowledge of Christ.



What is the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Sadly, since Eve and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil , having their eyes opened to sin, the world has eaten from this tree ever since. Many in the world know the difference between good and evil. There are many fine good atheists, muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans in society, some who even put christians to shame. But they still eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and by doing so, don't eat of the Tree of Life. Sadly, we as Christians eat of this tree too sometimes. We eat good sometimes, and other times we eat bad (sin). Even some will keep on eating the good part of this tree and never the bad, but rarely eat from the Tree of Life, who is Christ.

The thing is, Christians are not supposed to be touching this tree at all, but only eating from the Tree of Life. When Christians delve into learning about evil, for example, learning the ways of satanists, studying about occult symbols etc, they are eating from the evil side of the tree of knowledge. They are gaining knowledge of evil. This knowledge has no saving power but it can corrupt. This can lead to the symptom of the Pharisees, which is pride, they had much knowledge , but not the right kind of knowledge. They had knowledge of evil, and knowledge of good, but did not have knowledge of Christ. Eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil also implies growing in mere head knowledge of what is right, and what is not, but not having experiential knowledge of Christ. Even if we learn and learn all that is good, but don't learn from Christ, we can be eating from the "good" side of the tree of knowledge, and merely have knowledge but no life.

Understanding the importance of the two trees may also unlock a few clues about what heaven will be like such as:


Will it be possible for people to sin in New Jerusalem?

I don't believe so, because the tree of knowledge of good and evil is gone (at least, it is not mentioned in Revelations), and if there is no knowledge of evil, there is no temptation and if there is no temptation there is no sin. Revelations says:


Rev 21:27 And there shall in no way enter into it anything that defiles, or any making an abomination or a lie; but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

 

[DJB2034]

Hey... I know we disagreed on evolution or whatever... but this is a great post.

 

[BLC]

MahoganySnail,

You make some good points. Go a little deeper into the fruit of that tree. The tree of knowledge could only bear fruit according to it's seed, like other trees. So the fruit of good and evil is singular and it was forbidden by God for consumption. The serpent beguiled the woman to eat of that fruit, telling her that eating it would open her eyes (understanding) to be as gods, knowing good and evil. She looked upon the fruit that was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and a tree to desire to make one wise. The woman's perception of this fruit, that God forbid, became desirable to eat, to look upon and for wisdom.
Here is a perfect woman, with no sin nature, with no sins, with a clean conscience, no corruption, no wicked heart, no unbelief and was being taught daily by God in the cool of the garden. What made this perfect woman disobey God's instruction and eat that fruit, when she had her choice of all the trees in the garden?

Later we find in the NT that Paul writes to Timothy telling him not to let a women teach or have authority over a man for two reasons. Firstly, because Adam was first formed and then Eve. Secondly, Adam was not decieved but the woman being decieved was in the transgression (1Tim 2:12-14). These two reasons are independant of one another, meaning that if the woman had not been decieved, she is not to usurp authority over the man because Adam was formed first and then the woman. That seems to be very clear. The question is why did Adam eat of the fruit that his wife Eve gave to him and God did not consider that deception on his part? Probably, because he loved her and they were one flesh.

Think of all the strange and wierd doctrine that have come from this story that literally happened in the garden. One example is the promotion and ordination of women in the church to hold an office as pastors and teachers over men. They justify this by saying that in Christ, there is neither male or female and that Christ became a curse to end all curses including that one. BTW if all these things were removed, why do women still bare children with travail, why do men still work by the sweat of their brow? They seem to skip over what Paul taught on this subject, like it was not inspired by God. Then there are all kinds of people that say this story is not literal, and make it an allegory or some metaphor so that they don't have to submit to the authority of the truth, God's Holy Word. There is so much more to cover on this subject, dealing with the effects it had on Adam and his wife and how God dealt with it.

 

[DJB2034]

Seeing the story as literal detracts from its message.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Good points BLC. Although there is no male /female in Christ, i think you are right, as we are still in the flesh, the man still has authority over his wife etc. This will be removed in the next life I believe as people won't marry, and women and men will be more as equals as they were before the fall.

 

[thefightinglamb]

I was at a pentecostal mid-week service, with the same insight came into my heart...(yesterday, kind of wondering when you posted this)

How can a tree of life be anything but Jesus?

Imagine a tree of life in heaven that people go to instead of Jesus--it is just rediculuos...

But even in a more profound way was shown to me was that, a physical tree being the tree of life makes little sense...as if a physical tree could give eternal life than the spiritual would be a direct derivative of the physical...Instead of them being in actuality what they are...I am still not so sure what 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represents or is...I used to hold it to be the physical reality in itself...

As being made both a physical and spiritual being, the temptation would lie in choosing physical bliss to the extant of spiritual detrement.

But I was like wow! when I read your thread...Honestly, I went to the pastor after he spoke yesterday, and told him that I thought the tree of life had to be the Lord...and he responded by saying that he thought it was a physical tree in heaven as well...

But how can you find life from something or someone other than the Lord?

Even in heaven, I believe that would have to be blasphemy...

God's love and peace

tony

 

[MahogonySnail]

thanks for sharing Tony, well it was yesterday I posted this..at 8.14 pm as it says on the first post. If that's my time or what I don't know.

I believe the tree in Genesis was literal but carried symbolic meaning. But the tree in heaven is not I believe. Besides saying the Tree in heaven is Jesus, another explanation I've heard is that the tree is Jesus's teachings or commands. But as I see Jesus's teachings and His person one and the same anyway, since He is called "the Word", I think either view is valid.