What was ouside the garden?

[earl40]

Adam was cast out and is there any reason to believe that outside it wasn't already fallen?

Romans 5:12

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Now the interpretation of the first glance is self evident but is it necessarily so?

 

[Peairtach]

Adam was cast out and is there any reason to believe that outside it wasn't already fallen?

Strictly speaking - whatever the answer to the above - we should say Cursed rather than Fallen, because the non-human creation isn't moral in nature like Man, and can't Fall into sin, but can be Cursed/Spoilt.

 

[earl40]

Adam was cast out and is there any reason to believe that outside it wasn't already fallen?

Strictly speaking - whatever the answer to the above - we should say Cursed rather than Fallen, because the non-human creation isn't moral in nature like Man, and can't Fall into sin, but can be Cursed/Spoilt.

This reminds me of Augustine saying the separation of light from darkness was actually the fall of the angels and God separating them. Not cursed but fallen.

 

[Jack K]

The whole creation was cursed due to Adam's sin, right? So to me the more intriguing matter is that in the midst of this corruption, the garden seems to be preserved; hence the need to guard it. What is God saving it for? Do we have here a clue about God's intention to redeem us, to bring us back there (the garden-city in Revelation) someday?

 

[Peairtach]

The whole creation was cursed due to Adam's sin, right? So to me the more intriguing matter is that in the midst of this corruption, the garden seems to be preserved; hence the need to guard it. What is God saving it for? Do we have here a clue about God's intention to redeem us, to bring us back there (the garden-city in Revelation) someday?

If Adam and Eve had eaten (continued eating?) of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever in their sin. In a sense it was a mercy that that didn't happen.

Also the Curse, which I've always assumed fell upon the whole Earth when Adam sinned, was a mercy, because it helps remind sinful man that all is not right with him. A sinful human race in a pristine and un-Cursed World would be an anomaly which would not help promote faith and repentance.

The Tree of Life becomes a type of the Cross, which is also called a "tree". Those who "eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man" Who died on the Cross, have access to a higher and better form of life - eternal and spiritual - than fallen Adam and Eve would have had access to if they could have got back into the Garden of Eden and eaten of the the Tree of Life.

Christ's Cross is the true Tree of Life for all who believe.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If Adam and Eve had eaten (continued eating?) of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever in their sin. In a sense it was a mercy that that didn't happen.

Also the Curse, which I've always assumed fell upon the whole Earth when Adam sinned, was a mercy, because it helps remind sinful man that all is not right with him. A sinful human race in a pristine and un-Cursed World would be an anomaly which would not help promote faith and repentance.

The Tree of Life becomes a type of the Cross, which is also called a "tree". Those who "eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man" Who died on the Cross, have access to a higher and better form of life - eternal and spiritual - than fallen Adam and Eve would have had access to if they could have got back into the Garden of Eden and eaten of the the Tree of Life.

Christ's Cross is the true Tree of Life for all who believe.

I would agree with Calvin, that had Adam and Eve gained access to the Tree of Life, they might have eaten it up entire--fruit, branch, and root--and it would have done them no life-sustaining good whatsoever. Gen 3:22-23a reads,

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden...​

Clearly, Calvin would not have us fail to understand that this is God's theological statement, not a materialistic one. It is the statement: GOD WILL NOT RELENT.

For Adam NOW to put out his hand, take of the Tree of Life, eat, and live--when he had already been cursed to death--would have been a contrary theological statement. Namely, that God was unserious or flexible respecting his curse and would capriciously permit continued religious, life-giving intercourse with himself. That Adam is forbidden to eat sacramentally means that the death-sentence is certainly to be enforced, and visibly represented by the ban.

Remember, the benefit of a sacrament is found in the worthy, and the by-faith receiving of it. Certainly, Adam and Eve would have failed the first criteria. The trees were not magic or ex opere operato constructs. They were promise-trees, sacraments of religious devotion, appropriate to life in the Garden, under the Covenant of Works.

The curse and the separation from the Tree of Life simply enforces the ban--no more access to God under the Covenant of Works.

 

[Romans922]

God created all things.
Everything that was created was created good.
Adam, Eve, the Garden, everything outside of the garden was created
God created everything inside/outside the garden, and it was good.



Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

 

[Peairtach]

If Adam and Eve had eaten (continued eating?) of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever in their sin. In a sense it was a mercy that that didn't happen.

Also the Curse, which I've always assumed fell upon the whole Earth when Adam sinned, was a mercy, because it helps remind sinful man that all is not right with him. A sinful human race in a pristine and un-Cursed World would be an anomaly which would not help promote faith and repentance.

The Tree of Life becomes a type of the Cross, which is also called a "tree". Those who "eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man" Who died on the Cross, have access to a higher and better form of life - eternal and spiritual - than fallen Adam and Eve would have had access to if they could have got back into the Garden of Eden and eaten of the the Tree of Life.

Christ's Cross is the true Tree of Life for all who believe.

I would agree with Calvin, that had Adam and Eve gained access to the Tree of Life, they might have eaten it up entire--fruit, branch, and root--and it would have done them no life-sustaining good whatsoever. Gen 3:22-23a reads,

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden...​

Clearly, Calvin would not have us fail to understand that this is God's theological statement, not a materialistic one. It is the statement: GOD WILL NOT RELENT.

For Adam NOW to put out his hand, take of the Tree of Life, eat, and live--when he had already been cursed to death--would have been a contrary theological statement. Namely, that God was unserious or flexible respecting his curse and would capriciously permit continued religious, life-giving intercourse with himself. That Adam is forbidden to eat sacramentally means that the death-sentence is certainly to be enforced, and visibly represented by the ban.

Remember, the benefit of a sacrament is found in the worthy, and the by-faith receiving of it. Certainly, Adam and Eve would have failed the first criteria. The trees were not magic or ex opere operato constructs. They were promise-trees, sacraments of religious devotion, appropriate to life in the Garden, under the Covenant of Works.

The curse and the separation from the Tree of Life simply enforces the ban--no more access to God under the Covenant of Works.

In what sense was the Tree of Life sacramental?

Did it signify and seal to Adam that he was still under God's favour while he was still allowed to eat it?

Did it have any power in itself?

Did it in any sense confer or sustain or renew life?

-----Added 11/14/2009 at 01:20:11 EST-----

What's the connection between the Tabernacle/Temple and the Garden of Eden/Tree of Life?

You have cherubim sewn into the curtain guarding the way to the Holiest of All.

You have the Seven-branched Candelabra/Menorah shaped like a tree.

You have the priests eating the Bread of the Presence before the Lord in communion with Him.

Any further insights - or corrections/additions to the above - may be of spiritual value.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Keil and Delitzsch commentary on Gen.2-3 treats this passage superbly respecting the sacramental nature of the Trees.

So far as how or in what sense the Trees were sacraments, they were sensible signs that communicated religious truth. They were constitutive elements of worship, not simply naturalistic emblems. Adam's perpetual life was contingent on his obedience. But no less a part of that obedience was the maintenance of his communion with God. To partake of the Tree of Life was without question requisite to his staying in the state of life indefinitely. In this way, by faith it most certainly would keep Adam alive.

We can make a similar statement about heaven (or the eternal state) for us. Just because we will not be able to sin does not mean that each of us will have "life in himself." Our perpetual life in that condition is an effect of our endless communion with God. The Tree of Life reappears in the book of Revelation.

So in the garden the Tree did signify and seal to Adam that he was the recipient of life from the Life-giver. It was more than a token of God's approval; it was a means of his approval, by which we discern its sacramental character.

No, according to a sacramental character, such things do not have "power in themselves." That is essentially a Roman-type of error, who make sacraments into vessels.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would say that the Garden was (among other purposes) the "place of communion" with God in the world.

There are disanalogies between fellowship in pre- and post-lapsarian conditions. But drawing near to God seems always to have involved sacramental means, things that God institutes that assist us in embodied worship. Sacraments in a real sense affirm the body as necessary and "good," although God himself does not have or need a body essentially.

Your observation about the guardian cherubim is one of the characteristic "inter-textual" connections in Scripture.

The "tree-shaped" menorah is an interesting facet; but I don't know if there is any direct correlations I can draw between it, and one/other of the Trees.

The priests ate weekly of the bread, and they (alone) ate of certain mediatorial offerings; the people came to the altar bringing, as one form of sacrifice, fellowship/peace offerings--of which they ate portions along with the priests. And the Passover was a yearly offering-meal, slain by the priests, eaten by the people.

 

[earl40]

The whole creation was cursed due to Adam's sin, right? So to me the more intriguing matter is that in the midst of this corruption, the garden seems to be preserved; hence the need to guard it. What is God saving it for? Do we have here a clue about God's intention to redeem us, to bring us back there (the garden-city in Revelation) someday?

So was the garden cursed also?

-----Added 11/14/2009 at 03:19:25 EST-----

God created all things.
Everything that was created was created good.
Adam, Eve, the Garden, everything outside of the garden was created
God created everything inside/outside the garden, and it was good.



Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

So we mist assume Satan was allowed to roam around a perfect creation without causing problems before Adam?

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Earl

The whole creation was cursed due to Adam's sin, right? So to me the more intriguing matter is that in the midst of this corruption, the garden seems to be preserved; hence the need to guard it. What is God saving it for? Do we have here a clue about God's intention to redeem us, to bring us back there (the garden-city in Revelation) someday?

So was the garden cursed also?

We don't read of the creation outside the garden being cursed before the Fall, although some OECs may teach this to tie in with what they believe to be the correct science (?) It would also seem illogical for God to curse any part of His creation before the Fall of the Head of Creation.

The Garden in the land of Eden seems to have been in a more cultivated state than the non-Cursed area outside the Garden of Eden.

Quote from Earl

God created all things.
Everything that was created was created good.
Adam, Eve, the Garden, everything outside of the garden was created
God created everything inside/outside the garden, and it was good.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

So we mist assume Satan was allowed to roam around a perfect creation without causing problems before Adam?

We don't read that Satan was roaming around a perfect creation before Adam. Even if he was, there is no indication in the Bible that he was permitted to spoil anything until Adam sinned. The natural creation was spoiled by God because of Adam's sin, not in a fit of pique - of course - by God, but in order to teach a graciously preserved Man about the evil of sin, and the need to look for a better world.

Old Earth Creationists believe, because of natural scientific theories, that the Curse was imposed long before Adam, or they redefine certain things, e.g. thorns and thistles, animal death, etc, etc, as not belonging to the Curse.

It depends on the weight you're willing to give current "science" in relation to interpreting God's Word. If we took all current science seriously we'd all believe we were descended from or related to the chimps.

The reality is there were two chumps in the Garden of Eden, Satan's chumps. Sadly it wasn't for the last time.

We've no doubt all been Satan's chumps at one time or another!

 

[earl40]

Quote from Earl

The whole creation was cursed due to Adam's sin, right? So to me the more intriguing matter is that in the midst of this corruption, the garden seems to be preserved; hence the need to guard it. What is God saving it for? Do we have here a clue about God's intention to redeem us, to bring us back there (the garden-city in Revelation) someday?

So was the garden cursed also?

We don't read of the creation outside the garden being cursed before the Fall, although some OECs may teach this to tie in with what they believe to be the correct science (?) It would also seem illogical for God to curse any part of His creation before the Fall of the Head of Creation.

The Garden in the land of Eden seems to have been in a more cultivated state than the non-Cursed area outside the Garden of Eden.

Quote from Earl

God created all things.
Everything that was created was created good.
Adam, Eve, the Garden, everything outside of the garden was created
God created everything inside/outside the garden, and it was good.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

So we mist assume Satan was allowed to roam around a perfect creation without causing problems before Adam?

We don't read that Satan was roaming around a perfect creation before Adam. Even if he was, there is no indication in the Bible that he was permitted to spoil anything until Adam sinned. The natural creation was spoiled by God because of Adam's sin, not in a fit of pique - of course - by God, but in order to teach a graciously preserved Man about the evil of sin, and the need to look for a better world.

Old Earth Creationists believe, because of natural scientific theories, that the Curse was imposed long before Adam, or they redefine certain things, e.g. thorns and thistles, animal death, etc, etc, as not belonging to the Curse.

It depends on the weight you're willing to give current "science" in relation to interpreting God's Word. If we took all current science seriously we'd all believe we were descended from or related to the chimps.

The reality is there were two chumps in the Garden of Eden, Satan's chumps. Sadly it wasn't for the last time.

We've no doubt all been Satan's chumps at one time or another!

You brought up something that never occurred to me as an "old earther". Of course this lines up with my original post on what was outside the garden.

Thanx.