Were there two trees we could not eat from in Eden?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
Listening to an exposition of Revelation 22 took me back to Genesis. We (in Eve and then Adam) ate from "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". We could eat from every tree except this one. So far so good.

We were evicted from Eden in punishment and to prevent us eating from "the Tree of Life". Now could we eat from this tree before the fall?? It does not appear to have been prohibited??
 
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
(Genesis 3:22-24 ESV)

It sure seems like Adam and Eve could've eaten from the tree of life, but they did not ("...lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"). In a certain sense this makes the sin even greater, because instead of choosing the tree of life that was freely available, they chose the forbidden tree of knowledge and thereby, death. Sin of omission as well as sin of commission?:2cents:
 
Eoghan, there are two main views on this question, as you might expect. It was not prohibited. The question is why. Most Reformed authors believe that the Tree of Life had a sort of sacramental character about it. The question would then be whether the fruit of the Tree of Life was appropriate for Adam and Eve to eat in their pre-eschatological state, or whether it was reserved for the eschatological state. The text of Genesis does not really decide this question, since it is silent on whether they ate of it or not. Most authors, I think it is fair to say, do not believe that they ate of that tree. I rather lean the other way. If it wasn't forbidden, then I think they probably ate of it, unless one posits that the temptation happened immediately after the naming of all the creatures, and that therefore Adam and Eve didn't have any time to eat of that fruit. If it did have a sacramental character to it (and I lean towards that opinion), then it was sacramental of the state of sinlessness. Therefore it would have been appropriate for them to eat of the fruit when innocent. And since the ToL shows up again in Revelation, it signifies a newly established state of sinlessness, this time an unchangeable, fully eschatological state.

In my opinion, the contrary opinion usually hinges on a particular interpretation (or the shadow of it!) of Genesis 3:22, namely, that the ToL would somehow bring about a state of immortality. I think that what God is saying there is that it is inappropriate for Adam and Eve to eat of the sacramental ToL when in a state of death.
 
Eoghan, there are two main views on this question, as you might expect. It was not prohibited. The question is why. Most Reformed authors believe that the Tree of Life had a sort of sacramental character about it. The question would then be whether the fruit of the Tree of Life was appropriate for Adam and Eve to eat in their pre-eschatological state, or whether it was reserved for the eschatological state. The text of Genesis does not really decide this question, since it is silent on whether they ate of it or not. Most authors, I think it is fair to say, do not believe that they ate of that tree. I rather lean the other way. If it wasn't forbidden, then I think they probably ate of it, unless one posits that the temptation happened immediately after the naming of all the creatures, and that therefore Adam and Eve didn't have any time to eat of that fruit. If it did have a sacramental character to it (and I lean towards that opinion), then it was sacramental of the state of sinlessness. Therefore it would have been appropriate for them to eat of the fruit when innocent. And since the ToL shows up again in Revelation, it signifies a newly established state of sinlessness, this time an unchangeable, fully eschatological state.

In my opinion, the contrary opinion usually hinges on a particular interpretation (or the shadow of it!) of Genesis 3:22, namely, that the ToL would somehow bring about a state of immortality. I think that what God is saying there is that it is inappropriate for Adam and Eve to eat of the sacramental ToL when in a state of death.

I'm surprised that the popular opinion is that they did not eat of it, I would have expected otherwise, at least among Reformed interpreters. If it was sacramental of the CoW (or at least its Edenic administration), then we would expect partaking of it would signify a future consummation of the covenant where perfect communion with the author of life would take the place of the tree's fruit. That seems to be Witsius' take anyways.

I find it interesting, though of less import, that the older commentators debated whether there was a singular tree of life or it was a whole species of trees that populated the Garden.
 
Last edited:
Were there two trees we could not eat from in Eden?

Genesis 2:16,17

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top