The Tree of Life

[Keeping Alert]

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

We all know one bite of the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil condemned both Adam and Eve.

But here is another tree... Partaking of its fruit will cause one to live forever!

Sometimes I am amazed how many "trample under foot" as it were the work of Jesus Christ for the salvation of our souls.

One bite of the Tree of Life will cause one to live forever, but Accepting Jesus Christ to be our Sacrificial Atonement and Redemptive Savior is not Eternal???

Of course the tree of life itself would not do because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

The Tree of Life is a Typology of Christ, a Shadow... if the Shadow can cause one to live forever, how much more the real substance which is Christ!

[keithareilly]

John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

John 11:25-26
25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”


Ezekiel 47:12
And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.”


Rev 22:1-2
1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Interestingly, the tree of life has twelve kinds of fruit; Jesus had twelve apostles.

[Keeping Alert]

Keith, thanks! the passage you quoted in John 6:53 is a most interesting passage. In its context of this passage on the Setmon on the Bread of Life, is this verse 39,40

And this is the Father's will which has sent me, that of all which he had given me I should lose NOTHING, but should raised it up on the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Father's Will revealed is the Preservation of those who believe. A person cannot fall from grace because no one will be lost!

Love-in-Christ,
KA

[Keeping Alert]

I will add that many Christians are eating the wrong tree. The error of mankind is the error of thinking that if they know what is good and what is evil, they will choose to do good. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul himself said that the good he wishes to do that he could not do but the evil that he did not wish to do, that he does.

Any group that imposes the idea that we can fulfill the 10 commandments and such are essentially asking us to eat of the wrong tree... They promise life but in actual fact you shall Surely Die.

But I think many Christians are thinking it won't harm to eat from BOTH trees!

Well, I think Jesus said it clearly in Matthew 9:16,17... The old and new cannot mix...

And what does it mean that we must deny father, mother and even our selves to be worthy of him?

Is it for us to fulfill the 10 commandments? But we should honor our father and mother and we shall not murder... It just does not gel...

Nay, but I die to all pride of my flesh that I can know and do good or to know evil and sun evil... And that as a wretched man that I am, I cling on to the Tree of Life Alone, my Lord Jesus Christ! Then when we partake fully of the Fruit of the Tree of Life, Christ starts to live out His Life in me and I in Him!

[Mr Baldy]

We all know one bite of the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil condemned both Adam and Eve.

One bite of the Tree of Life will cause one to live forever

How do we know it was "One bite" that caused sin or death - or that "One bite" can cause eternal life?

God said in Genesis 3:22 -

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Seems to me that a few things had to happen here.....he had to put forth his hand (reach), take ( touch & remove) and eat (devour or consume).

Seems like a lot more than a single "bite" going on here to me. Less he was bobbin for an APPLE

[Keeping Alert]

We all know one bite of the Fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil condemned both Adam and Eve.

One bite of the Tree of Life will cause one to live forever

How do we know it was "One bite" that caused sin or death - or that "One bite" can cause eternal life?

God said in Genesis 3:22 -

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Seems to me that a few things had to happen here.....he had to put forth his hand (reach), take ( touch & remove) and eat (devour or consume).

Seems like a lot more than a single "bite" going on here to me. Less he was bobbin for an APPLE

Thanks for the thought, Baldy :)

Which to me seems that God is even more graceful than we think... Adam and Eve did not die when they put forth their hand, they did not die when they touched and removed the fruit. They died when they ate the fruit.

But for the Tree of Life... it may seem that any of the above actions (reach forth, touch, take, eat) may bring forth life eternal!

[Jay Ross]

Oh, how we rely on badly translated Hebrew texts such as Genesis 2:17 for our understanding of God's word. We are told technically by the "scholars" that "die/mowt" should actually be understood to mean "thou shall surely" when it is translated as "die" else where in the Old Testament.

Now if the verse ends with "die die," since "taamuwt" is also translated as "die," then perhaps Genesis 2:17 is speaking metaphorically that if Adam eats of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that he will die the second death. That is to say, when his time of judgement comes at the end of days, he will not be judged to be righteous, unless he has repented of his sins.

Does not Ezekiel tell us that a person who is going to die the second death because of his sins, will live and not die the second death if he repents of his sins against God. Is that not God's heart?

[Abiding in His Word]

Now if the verse ends with "die die," since "taamuwt" is also translated as "die," then perhaps Genesis 2:17 is speaking metaphorically that if Adam eats of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that he will die the second death.

Hi Jay, personally I think this is more of a stretch than "surely die" as I see nothing to indicate the passage is metaphorical in nature. Knowing nothing about Hebrew, I would think the purpose of the duplication of the word die might be to emphasize it's meaning. If that were the case, "surely die" would emphasize the strong warning.

Just my observation since in checking 9 or 10 versions of the same verse, all include either the modifier "surely" or "certainly."

[Jay Ross]

Now if the verse ends with "die die," since "taamuwt" is also translated as "die," then perhaps Genesis 2:17 is speaking metaphorically that if Adam eats of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that he will die the second death.

Hi Jay, personally I think this is more of a stretch than "surely die" as I see nothing to indicate the passage is metaphorical in nature. Knowing nothing about Hebrew, I would think the purpose of the duplication of the word die might be to emphasize it's meaning. If that were the case, "surely die" would emphasize the strong warning.

Just my observation since in checking 9 or 10 versions of the same verse, all include either the modifier "surely" or "certainly."

Abiding, if the Abyss existed on day one of creation, then why cannot we accept that the Second Death was known about from the time of Adam. The Egyptians certainly were concerned about it when Abraham told them that Sarah was his sister and the pharaoh took her for his wife. Ambimelech also was destined to suffer the second death but he defended his stance and was told that to lift the curse that he had placed on his household, that he had to ask Abraham to pray for him and his household.

Just because you check the hold of tradition on the translation of this verse in nine to ten translation versions, does not make the manner in which it was translated right. What I am suggesting means that the context of Genesis 2:17 is consistent throughout the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding, if the Abyss existed on day one of creation, then why cannot we accept that the Second Death was known about from the time of Adam.

Jay, If the second death is the equivalent of eternal separation from God, then we have no scriptural evidence that Adam was aware of it nor that he was condemned to this punishment. We do, however, have scriptural evidence of what God told him the consequences of his disobedience would be. The consequence was banishment from the garden, more difficulty in toiling the soil, no access to the Tree of Life, and physical death by returning to dust from which he was created.

Just because you check the hold of tradition on the translation of this verse in nine to ten translation versions, does not make the manner in which it was translated right. What I am suggesting means that the context of Genesis 2:17 is consistent throughout the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Oh, I certainly don't agree with every translation and/or interpretations by scholars! As I mentioned in another thread that most likely the woman caught in adultery is more of a tradition than an actual part of the canon. Scholars and believers love the story so much that they will defend it's inclusion till their dying day despite the lack of evidence in the earliest manuscripts. Most believe it very well have occurred but lacking evidence conclude that it was included by a scribe.

That said, there is nothing I see in Genesis to conclude that Adam would be relegated to eternal punishment for lack of repentance. The consequences of his actions are very clear and the fact that he lived 930 yrs. before he returned to dust leads us to believe that the phrase "in that day" is likely more of a Hebrew idiom than a designation of a literal time frame. The Tree of Life would no longer provide the life it was designed to and we don't see it available again to believers until the book of Revelation.

So in conclusion ( for me anyway) we are free to believe the place of the second death existed, but not that it was Adam's end.

[mark s]

Where do we read that the abyss existed from the first day of creation?

[Jay Ross]

<snip>

Jay, If the second death is the equivalent of eternal separation from God, then we have no scriptural evidence that Adam was aware of it nor that he was condemned to this punishment. <snip>

The question that needs to be resolved is that if we sin without repentance, do we, when we die, then await for the final judgement day when our fate will be to die the second death. If this is true for us, then why is it then not true for Adam?

Now the Bible is silent on whether or not Adam and Eve did repent of their sin in the Garden of Eden, but the record of the birth of Cain, it is recorded that Eve Said, "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord." which suggests that both Adam and Eve still had a relationship with God. With the birth of Seth, eve is recorded as saying, "God has appointed me with another seed, instead of Abel whom Cain slew."

<snip> We do, however, have scriptural evidence of what God told him the consequences of his disobedience would be. The consequence was banishment from the garden, more difficulty in toiling the soil, no access to the Tree of Life, and physical death by returning to dust from which he was created.

<snip>

Yes I agree with you that the consequences of Adam's sin of eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil, was that he was no longer allowed to be in the Garden of Eden because he may decide to also eat of the Tree of Life. I agree that life would become more difficult for him, however, the Bible is silent on whether or not physical death began because of Adam's sin or whether God was telling Adam that his live would be hard and that by the sweat of his face he would have to work to be able to eat bread until the time of his physical death when he would return to the ground.

We need to be careful that we do not read more into the scriptures than what was originally meant.

<snip>

. . . , there is nothing I see in Genesis to conclude that Adam would be relegated to eternal punishment for lack of repentance. The consequences of his actions are very clear and the fact that he lived 930 yrs. before he returned to dust leads us to believe that the phrase "in that day" is likely more of a Hebrew idiom than a designation of a literal time frame. The Tree of Life would no longer provide the life it was designed to and we don't see it available again to believers until the book of Revelation.

So in conclusion ( for me anyway) we are free to believe the place of the second death existed, but not that it was Adam's end.

I agree with your conclusion that the place of the second death existed and that we do not have enough Biblical evidence to assume that it was the final outcome for Adam.

However, I disagree with your statement the Tree of Life would no longer provide the Life it was designed to. Its purpose has not changed from the beginning of time. Again the Bible is silent as to when God intended to make the Tree of Life available for mankind to eat from in the Old Testament.

Shalom

Jay Ross

[Jay Ross]

Where do we read that the abyss existed from the first day of creation?

Genesis 1:1-5

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness/evil was on the face of the deep/abyss/bottomless pit. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
NKJV

Mark, this is where I see the Abyss on Day one of Creation, however, if you do not perceive it that way then I am okay with that.

[mark s]

Hi Jay,

I see where you're coming from on this, however, as the earth was yet "formless and empty", it's difficult for me to imagine that it had any specific features, so I see this more as the common translation, the deep, or along those lines.

Also, I notice that you include in your translation that there was evil there also. I'd have to remind you that throughout creation God declared everything to be good, so you have God calling evil good.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

Hi Jay,

I see where you're coming from on this, however, as the earth was yet "formless and empty", it's difficult for me to imagine that it had any specific features, so I see this more as the common translation, the deep, or along those lines.

Also, I notice that you include in your translation that there was evil there also. I'd have to remind you that throughout creation God declared everything to be good, so you have God calling evil good.

Love in Christ,
Mark

mark I am equating that darkness can be considered to be the same as evil and it is covering/hiding the entrance/opening to the deep/the abyss.

As such, I have not changed the intent of God or whether the creation was good or not because it also included "darkness/evil." Without evil being present, we cannot appreciate the Goodness of God.

[mark s]

mark I am equating that darkness can be considered to be the same as evil and it is covering/hiding the entrance/opening to the deep/the abyss.

As such, I have not changed the intent of God or whether the creation was good or not because it also included "darkness/evil." Without evil being present, we cannot appreciate the Goodness of God.

Then in your view, God created moral evil, and called it good?

I cannot agree with that.

As far as whether or not God can or cannot be appreciated with or without the presence of evil, how would you ever be able to prove that? Is it not within the realm of all that is possible that God could in fact be appreciated without the presence of evil? Isn't that what we will be doing in what we commonly call "the eternal state"?

Love in Christ,
Mark