PDA

View Full Version : The Two Trees



Yukerboy
Dec 11th 2008, 10:58 PM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

BrckBrln
Dec 11th 2008, 11:27 PM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

I think they were two real trees. What they represent, I don't know.

Mysteryman
Dec 11th 2008, 11:53 PM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?
Since they were actual trees, they are what the Word of God states that they are.

1. Tree of knowledge of good and evil

2. Tree of life

Both eatable trees with fruit.

BrckBrln
Dec 11th 2008, 11:56 PM
Since they were actual trees, they are what the Word of God states that they are.

1. Tree of knowledge of good and evil

2. Tree of life

Both eatable trees with fruit.

I hope I'm not steering off topic here, but do you believe the trees had power in them?

Partaker of Christ
Dec 12th 2008, 12:03 AM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

Hi Yukerboy!

IMHO, I think both.

Symbolically:
Tree of Life = Dependence on God
Tree of knowledge of good and evil = Independence (or self dependence)

IamBill
Dec 12th 2008, 12:12 AM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

Both from me as well.

Life/Spirit
Death/Flesh

Mysteryman
Dec 12th 2008, 12:35 AM
I hope I'm not steering off topic here, but do you believe the trees had power in them?
I will not add nor take away from the Word of God. They were trees with fruit, that was eatable. The two trees were what the Word of God tells us they were. Tree of knowledge - of - good and - evil

The other tree with eatable fruit was the tree - of - life.

I will not respond more than or less than what the Word states.

Biastai
Dec 12th 2008, 12:46 AM
Arnold Toynbee suggested that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was law. How would one know what was good or evil if it weren't for some type of law or command? As soon as they ate of the fruit, they then possessed the experience of playing the obedient and the disobedient party. Before this, they never knew what it was like to transgress. Therefore, at that moment, "the eyes of both of them were open," but they lost access to the tree of life.

Paul wrestles with this idea in his letter to the Romans...

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."
Romans 7:7-13

IamBill
Dec 12th 2008, 12:51 AM
I hope I'm not steering off topic here, but do you believe the trees had power in them?

Not sure "power in them" is correct phrase, maybe though. One gave life the other caused death ...pretty significant fruit I would guess.
;)

markdrums
Dec 12th 2008, 12:56 AM
I hope I'm not steering off topic here, but do you believe the trees had power in them?

I don't think there was anything "magical" about the trees / fruits themselves.... but in the actions / choices Adam & Eve made in Eating them.

They knew that God commanded them NOT to eat of the particular tree. But, by doing so, they knew full well that they were disobeying God's command. THAT is when they "learned" Good & Evil.
It wasn't anything aboout the fruit, but rather, the willfule decision to disobey God & eat it anyway.

Just as a child understands when they disobey their parents. They feel shame, & regret.... they know they did something they weren't supposed to. That feeling of guilt & disobedience is pretty strong.

Make sense??
;)

tgallison
Dec 12th 2008, 01:21 AM
[quote=Yukerboy;1902296]I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness: and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2)

The two trees in the garden, one very desirable, the other without beauty to be desired. Both these trees were in the midst of the garden. The one ignored, the other desired.


One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature: and his top was among the thick boughs." (Ezekiel 31:3)

This cedar tree was symbolic of both a human king, and a spiritual king. We know the human king was not in the garden, but the spiritual king was.

"I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him." (Ezekiel 31:9)


Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

It seems obvious they are symbolic. Are they actual? I do not know.

We know the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.

And the fruit of the flesh is adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, and revellings.

Yukerboy
Dec 12th 2008, 01:50 AM
Arnold Toynbee suggested that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was law. How would one know what was good or evil if it weren't for some type of law or command? As soon as they ate of the fruit, they then possessed the experience of playing the obedient and the disobedient party. Before this, they never knew what it was like to transgress. Therefore, at that moment, "the eyes of both of them were open," but they lost access to the tree of life.

Paul wrestles with this idea in his letter to the Romans...

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."
Romans 7:7-13


That was exactly where I was going with this. I thought that it was like some original revelation I had or something, but I see there truly is nothing new under the sun. :)

The Tree of Life however....that would be Christ. If salvation could be had through works, then grace is no longer grace.

So, the law could be the tree of knowledge. But let me go one step further, using the passage above.

Apart from the law (Word of God; commandment), sin is dead. Once I (Adam and Eve) was alive apart from law; but when the commandment (Do not eat of that tree) came, sin sprang to life (sin abiding in the flesh) and I died (you shall surely die).

So, while I was originally thinking that the tree of knowledge could be the law, it was the commandment by God that was the law. Adam and Eve, once God gave them the commandment, had sin spring to life because of the commandment and kill them.

Yuke

divaD
Dec 12th 2008, 02:16 AM
The Tree of Life however....that would be Christ.


Do you mean as in literally?

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Clearly this is Christ speaking here. Clearly Christ and the tree of life are not the same entity. IMO Christ is the way back to the tree of life, but Christ is not literally the tree of life. This would be like if Jesus was talking about the Father, and some thinking that He was also the Father. In the same regards, Jesus is speaking about the tree of life, yet we shouldn't assume that Jesus is also the tree of Life.

IamBill
Dec 12th 2008, 02:23 AM
Do you mean as in literally?

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Clearly this is Christ speaking here. Clearly Christ and the tree of life are not the same entity. IMO Christ is the way back to the tree of life, but Christ is not literally the tree of life. This would be like if Jesus was talking about the Father, and some thinking that He was also the Father. In the same regards, Jesus is speaking about the tree of life, yet we shouldn't assume that Jesus is also the tree of Life.

I thought Christ was represented by the flaming Sword placed at the gate myself

divaD
Dec 12th 2008, 02:33 AM
I thought Christ was represented by the flaming Sword placed at the gate myself



That's a rather interesting conclusion that I have never considered. How do you come to that conclusion?

IamBill
Dec 12th 2008, 03:10 AM
That's a rather interesting conclusion that I have never considered. How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't know. sat here 10 mins. now wondering why :lol:

kenrank
Dec 12th 2008, 03:30 AM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

Interesting question. My first thought is that I have no thought! I was about to say that the tree of life was physical...fruit and all. But the tree of knowledge of good and evil was spiritual. A mirror of ourselves...physical and spiritual. But then I got to thinking, we produce fruit that is not physical...and Paul wrote in Hebrews about "tasting the good Word of God," which again, is more spiritual then physical. Is it possible then that the fruit Adam ate was spiritual fruit?

Peace.
Ken

Mysteryman
Dec 12th 2008, 02:30 PM
The tree of life is a - "she" - Proverbs 3:18 The context here in Proverbs is talking about "wisdom". So , wisdom is a "she" and the tree of life is a "she". Jesus Christ is a - "he"

Mysteryman
Dec 12th 2008, 02:34 PM
Interesting question. My first thought is that I have no thought! I was about to say that the tree of life was physical...fruit and all. But the tree of knowledge of good and evil was spiritual. A mirror of ourselves...physical and spiritual. But then I got to thinking, we produce fruit that is not physical...and Paul wrote in Hebrews about "tasting the good Word of God," which again, is more spiritual then physical. Is it possible then that the fruit Adam ate was spiritual fruit?

Peace.
Ken
Both trees were literal and both trees had fruit and both fruit were eatable.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is just what God's Word tells us that it is. However, there was a "command" by God not to eat of it. The death of man and mankind came about by the disobedience of the command.. Death came upon all mankind by the sin of Adam.

BroRog
Dec 12th 2008, 02:46 PM
That was exactly where I was going with this. I thought that it was like some original revelation I had or something, but I see there truly is nothing new under the sun. :)

The Tree of Life however....that would be Christ. If salvation could be had through works, then grace is no longer grace.

So, the law could be the tree of knowledge. But let me go one step further, using the passage above.

Apart from the law (Word of God; commandment), sin is dead. Once I (Adam and Eve) was alive apart from law; but when the commandment (Do not eat of that tree) came, sin sprang to life (sin abiding in the flesh) and I died (you shall surely die).

So, while I was originally thinking that the tree of knowledge could be the law, it was the commandment by God that was the law. Adam and Eve, once God gave them the commandment, had sin spring to life because of the commandment and kill them.

Yuke

I think the parallel is striking. But I wouldn't say that Adam and Eve had the entire Mosaic Law, but simply that one commandment.

Now, I can't wait to see how your new insights will interact with Romans 5. ;)

Yukerboy
Dec 12th 2008, 03:43 PM
Do you mean as in literally?

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Clearly this is Christ speaking here. Clearly Christ and the tree of life are not the same entity. IMO Christ is the way back to the tree of life, but Christ is not literally the tree of life. This would be like if Jesus was talking about the Father, and some thinking that He was also the Father. In the same regards, Jesus is speaking about the tree of life, yet we shouldn't assume that Jesus is also the tree of Life.

I'm thinking quite literally. I think most who claim to be Christians will agree that Christ is the only way to eternal life.

As for giving the tree of life to eat...Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

I would say the characteristics of the Tree of Life and the characteristics of Christ are the same.


I think the parallel is striking. But I wouldn't say that Adam and Eve had the entire Mosaic Law, but simply that one commandment.

Agreed. The law given by God to Adam and Eve was: do not eat of that tree. Once that command was given, sin sprang to life and they died.


Now, I can't wait to see how your new insights will interact with Romans 5.

Let's see, and bear with me as I type this while I think it through.

before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

There was sin in the world before the command was given but it wasn't taken into account because there was no command.

I'm going to skip the whole original sin debate and concentrate on the law.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

This is telling me that the sin committed by Adam was not "big enough". Meaning that God added the law so that more cammandments could be broken. Doesn't make sense, but that's what I am getting from this.

where sin increased, grace increased all the more

Now it kind of makes sense. God wanted the trespass to increase so that His grace could increase. And that Grace is accessible through faith (we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand)

not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

I did a search on grace and find this in 1 Timothy. Grace would be impossible without sin. Sin existed before the command came, but was not taken into account. Grace was given to those elected by God before the beginning of time. Not because of anything we had done, but because of God's own purpose and grace. Therefore, God purposed the law to be trespassed against so that grace could abound to those he elected.

God did not choose Paul on the road to Damascus. God chose Paul, gave him grace before the beginning of time. God set Paul apart from his birth and called him by God's grace.

RogerW
Dec 12th 2008, 06:37 PM
Let's see, and bear with me as I type this while I think it through.

before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

There was sin in the world before the command was given but it wasn't taken into account because there was no command.

I'm going to skip the whole original sin debate and concentrate on the law.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

This is telling me that the sin committed by Adam was not "big enough". Meaning that God added the law so that more cammandments could be broken. Doesn't make sense, but that's what I am getting from this.

Hi Yuke,

This is interesting, and I think I'm with you all the way! What if adding the law was to make the trespass apparent? The evil that is in us by birth and nature, that the world may become guilty before God, now having a knowledge of sin.

Ro 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law takes away all excuses and reveals to us what we are; guilty sinners!



where sin increased, grace increased all the more

Now it kind of makes sense. God wanted the trespass to increase so that His grace could increase. And that Grace is accessible through faith (we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand)

not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

I did a search on grace and find this in 1 Timothy. Grace would be impossible without sin. Sin existed before the command came, but was not taken into account. Grace was given to those elected by God before the beginning of time. Not because of anything we had done, but because of God's own purpose and grace. Therefore, God purposed the law to be trespassed against so that grace could abound to those he elected.

God did not choose Paul on the road to Damascus. God chose Paul, gave him grace before the beginning of time. God set Paul apart from his birth and called him by God's grace.

But where sin overflows, abounds and contaminates every faculty, the grace of God in Christ does MUCH MORE overflow in justification:

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

In regeneration:

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And in sanctification:

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Sin has such power over men in their state of nature that it is said to "reign" in death. It has dominion (controlling and commanding power) over voluntary subjects. So in a state of regeneration and righteousness in Christ the grace of God reigns and holiness becomes the governing principle.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Ro 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Ro 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Since God bestows His grace upon His elect from before the foundation of the world the purpose of the law, making us aware of sin and our fallen condition, is necessary to show us His grace.

Great insight Yuke. We forget that sin was already in the world at creation; i.e. we've always needed His grace, but how could we know His grace without first knowing sin through the law.

Many Blessings,
RW

markedward
Dec 12th 2008, 08:18 PM
Just to fuel the discussion...

Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, retells basically the entirety of the Jewish histories in a chronological order, basing much of his work on the Bible. The important thing, however, is that he also inserts his contemporary's interpretations or elaborations of certain events in the Bible.

Naturally, he begins with Genesis. He describes how God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. He states it matter-of-factly. However, when he begins with the events about Adam and Eve and the serpent and the forbidden fruit, Josephus starts off by saying "after the seventh day Moses begins to talk philosophically." This tells us that Josephus, and very likely a large number of his first-century contemporary Jews, interpreted Genesis 2-3 as allegorical and not literal. Josephus doesn't elaborate on what he means by "philosophical", but does anyone think they might know how Josephus (and other first-century Jews) may have interpreted Genesis 2-3 as allegory and not literal?

Partaker of Christ
Dec 12th 2008, 08:57 PM
Interesting question. My first thought is that I have no thought! I was about to say that the tree of life was physical...fruit and all. But the tree of knowledge of good and evil was spiritual. A mirror of ourselves...physical and spiritual. But then I got to thinking, we produce fruit that is not physical...and Paul wrote in Hebrews about "tasting the good Word of God," which again, is more spiritual then physical. Is it possible then that the fruit Adam ate was spiritual fruit?

Peace.
Ken

Hi Ken!

I almost certainly believe that 'knowledge' itself, is spiritual.
Whether that knowledge is good or evil.

I don't know if I am using the right words, but it has no physical composites. It is not atomised.
If you have a one terabit hard drive, and fill it full with information, the hard drive does not weigh any heavier then when it was blank.

Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, an evil thing?
Well it was right there in the garden, when God said it was good.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

RabbiKnife
Dec 12th 2008, 09:04 PM
To paraphrase Herr Doktor Freud,

"Sometimes a tree is just a tree."

mikebr
Dec 12th 2008, 09:16 PM
the two trees

The Do to Be Tree- The tree of the knowledge of good (god) and evil (devil). The Law Tree. Eating from this tree causes you to look at things as either good or evil and categorize them as such.

The Be to Do Tree- The tree of Live. The Grace Tree. Eating from this tree causes you to see things as God sees them.

Dani H
Dec 12th 2008, 09:25 PM
I don't know.

The reason I don't know is that I wasn't there.

Nor were any of us.

Who was there, was God, and Adam, and Eve, and the serpent/devil/whatever/whocares.

So really, we can speculate, which is interesting and I think there are points being made here that are fascinating indeed.

But I do think if we focus on the how's and where's too much, we stand in danger of missing the "what do we learn from this"?

What I personally learned is this:

Disobedience = bad.

Obedience = good.

:)

Biastai
Dec 13th 2008, 05:50 AM
Just to fuel the discussion...

Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, retells basically the entirety of the Jewish histories in a chronological order, basing much of his work on the Bible. The important thing, however, is that he also inserts his contemporary's interpretations or elaborations of certain events in the Bible.

Naturally, he begins with Genesis. He describes how God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. He states it matter-of-factly. However, when he begins with the events about Adam and Eve and the serpent and the forbidden fruit, Josephus starts off by saying "after the seventh day Moses begins to talk philosophically." This tells us that Josephus, and very likely a large number of his first-century contemporary Jews, interpreted Genesis 2-3 as allegorical and not literal. Josephus doesn't elaborate on what he means by "philosophical", but does anyone think they might know how Josephus (and other first-century Jews) may have interpreted Genesis 2-3 as allegory and not literal?

Interesting point. Its hard to know what he means by Moses speaking "philosophically" since he goes on to record the account of Genesis plainly without allegorization. I wonder if confusion is being added by Josephus' loose use of the word i.e. later describing Zealots, Essenes, Sadducees, & Pharisees as "philosophies." He was writing for Roman(?) readers, and perhaps struggled with word choice. I believe he confesses a difficulty of writing his work in Greek near the end of Antiquities. An allegory would be tough since the trees seem to hold an already symbolic nature the way they are described. Wouldn't it be next to impossible to answer your question without knowledge of rabbinic literature? All I can weakly offer is that the inheriting of sin through Adam/Eve was a relatively new idea introduced by ben Sira (he blames Eve as opposed to Paul blaming Adam). However, no sign of allegorization.

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 13th 2008, 08:13 AM
ILet's see, and bear with me as I type this while I think it through.

before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

There was sin in the world before the command was given but it wasn't taken into account because there was no command.

I guess this is where I'm having a little trouble, you guys.

Doesn't the Bible declare that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God? Not before the commandment was given, but after it was broken.
We also know that the law exists because of sin. The law is not the same thing as the commandment that God gave Adam and Eve. The law that Paul is speaking of here is extensive, because sin had permeated all aspects of humanity.

I guess I'm just not following the logic here. God's creation was perfect before Adam sinned...if sin were in the world before they rebelled, then creation could not have been perfect.


I'm going to skip the whole original sin debate and concentrate on the law.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

This is telling me that the sin committed by Adam was not "big enough". Meaning that God added the law so that more cammandments could be broken. Doesn't make sense, but that's what I am getting from this.

Hmmm......I guess I see this verse differently.
Paul isn't saying that the law was added so that we could sin more; instead, it was added so that we were aware of what is and isn't sin. A person can commit sin without knowing it is sin (iniquity), but when a person knows what is and isn;t sin, then iniquity becomes tresspass.
Paul is saying that the law was added so that we could be held accountable for the iniquity that is in us. Tresspass indicates a conscious breaking of the law...."willful sin," so to speak. I think what Paul is saying is that the law was added so that God could fairly judge the sin that is already in us.

We are fallen creatures, and will sin whether we know it or not. When the law is given, tresspass increases, because it alters the basis on which sin is committed.



where sin increased, grace increased all the more

Now it kind of makes sense. God wanted the trespass to increase so that His grace could increase.

I don't think that God wanted the tresspass to increase. He wanted our awareness of what is/isn't sin to increase, so that He could judge us fairly.


Sin existed before the command came, but was not taken into account. Grace was given to those elected by God before the beginning of time. Not because of anything we had done, but because of God's own purpose and grace. Therefore, God purposed the law to be trespassed against so that grace could abound to those he elected.

I think I know what you're getting at, but this line of thinking, for some, reason, reminds me of what Paul warned against in Romans 6:

Rom. 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (6)Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world. (7) For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? (8) And why not say "Let us do evil that good may come?" - as we are slanderously reported and as some may affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

If God had purposed that the law be tresspassed, so that His grace may abound, then it should stand to reason that the more we sin, the more we glorify Him. This marred line of thinking is exactly what Paul is getting at here......in fact, he is saying that if you think that way, then your condemnation is justified.

God does not purpose the law to be tresspassed, in the sense that He can be glorified. God will be glorified whether or not we sin.

kenrank
Dec 14th 2008, 06:35 AM
Both trees were literal and both trees had fruit and both fruit were eatable.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, is just what God's Word tells us that it is. However, there was a "command" by God not to eat of it. The death of man and mankind came about by the disobedience of the command.. Death came upon all mankind by the sin of Adam.

You might be right, but none of us have seen either tree. It is possible they were not physical....truth is, neither of us can say for SURE either way.

Ken

kenrank
Dec 14th 2008, 06:39 AM
Hi Ken!

I almost certainly believe that 'knowledge' itself, is spiritual.
Whether that knowledge is good or evil.

I don't know if I am using the right words, but it has no physical composites. It is not atomised.
If you have a one terabit hard drive, and fill it full with information, the hard drive does not weigh any heavier then when it was blank.

Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, an evil thing?
Well it was right there in the garden, when God said it was good.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Good thoughts! Unfortunately, for us, it falls under the class of "what was God doing before Creation?" Unless we find a garden and a couple of messengers standing guard, we can only reason it out so far and take our best guess. It is one of those things we will learn about at Messiah's return.

Peace to you Partaker!
Ken

Equipped_4_Love
Dec 14th 2008, 06:51 AM
If the Tree of Life is not literal, then does that mean that the Tree of Life spoken of in Revelation is also not literal? We will not actually be eating from a tree, but this is symbolic of something else?

For those of you who do not believe that the two trees in the Garden are literal, I am curious....what is it in particular that leads you to that conclusion?

divaD
Dec 14th 2008, 06:58 AM
Well it was right there in the garden, when God said it was good.



When did God say it was good?

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 06:17 PM
I guess this is where I'm having a little trouble, you guys.

Doesn't the Bible declare that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God? Not before the commandment was given, but after it was broken.
We also know that the law exists because of sin. The law is not the same thing as the commandment that God gave Adam and Eve. The law that Paul is speaking of here is extensive, because sin had permeated all aspects of humanity.

I guess I'm just not following the logic here. God's creation was perfect before Adam sinned...if sin were in the world before they rebelled, then creation could not have been perfect.



Hmmm......I guess I see this verse differently.
Paul isn't saying that the law was added so that we could sin more; instead, it was added so that we were aware of what is and isn't sin. A person can commit sin without knowing it is sin (iniquity), but when a person knows what is and isn;t sin, then iniquity becomes tresspass.
Paul is saying that the law was added so that we could be held accountable for the iniquity that is in us. Tresspass indicates a conscious breaking of the law...."willful sin," so to speak. I think what Paul is saying is that the law was added so that God could fairly judge the sin that is already in us.

We are fallen creatures, and will sin whether we know it or not. When the law is given, tresspass increases, because it alters the basis on which sin is committed.



I don't think that God wanted the tresspass to increase. He wanted our awareness of what is/isn't sin to increase, so that He could judge us fairly.



I think I know what you're getting at, but this line of thinking, for some, reason, reminds me of what Paul warned against in Romans 6:

Rom. 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (6)Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world. (7) For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? (8) And why not say "Let us do evil that good may come?" - as we are slanderously reported and as some may affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

If God had purposed that the law be tresspassed, so that His grace may abound, then it should stand to reason that the more we sin, the more we glorify Him. This marred line of thinking is exactly what Paul is getting at here......in fact, he is saying that if you think that way, then your condemnation is justified.

God does not purpose the law to be tresspassed, in the sense that He can be glorified. God will be glorified whether or not we sin.

In no way am I saying to sin any more. Matter of fact, I am saying those who are saved cannot sin, just as John says.

However, I will change my thought and agree that sin was not in the world until sin was brought into the world by Adam.

I will stand by my guns and by Paul when Paul says the purpose of the law was to create more transgressions. Without the law, there is no sin for sin is transgression of the law.

neverleaveunorfors
Dec 14th 2008, 07:23 PM
just give me a couple of hour s and Ill have it posted for you and the fruit was not an apple or any other type this answer is all scripture backed and the answer is there u just got to study This same Question inspired me to study and find give me time or email me @

RogerW
Dec 14th 2008, 07:41 PM
In no way am I saying to sin any more. Matter of fact, I am saying those who are saved cannot sin, just as John says.

However, I will change my thought and agree that sin was not in the world until sin was brought into the world by Adam.

I will stand by my guns and by Paul when Paul says the purpose of the law was to create more transgressions. Without the law, there is no sin for sin is transgression of the law.

Hi Yuke,

Had you considered that both statements are true? Yuke: "There was sin in the world before the command was given but it wasn't taken into account because there was no command." Welder: "Doesn't the Bible declare that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God? Not before the commandment was given, but after it was broken."

Sin was in the world before Adam sinned, but sin is not imputed if there is no law. So even though sin was in the world it did not pass upon all men, unto death, until man disobeyed the law. It is DEATH by sin that entered, or the consquences for disobedience that entered into the world by one man. As far as the law was concerned, sin entered the world by one man (Adam), and death passed upon all men. As far as the sin, it was in the world, even before the law, but it was not counted as sin before the command, "do not eat" was given, and man disobeyed.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Ro 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

By one man, Adam, death and condemnation entered the world through sin. Through the offense of the one man MANY will die. And MANY will receive the gift of grace by one man, Jesus Christ. For the free gift is of MANY (not all or every offence) offences unto justification. So then death reigns by one man's offense, but those who receive grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

It is not sin, (though every man sins) that comes upon all men after the fall, it is condemnation and death. Condemnation or death is upon all men through the offense of one man, Adam. Through the righteousness of Christ comes justification of life upon all men. Does that mean that every man is justified through the righteousness of Christ?

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

No! Because only many, (not every man) were made sinners, and only many shall be made righteous. Many, who are elect from the foundation of the world were made sinners, and therefore condemned to death. But the same many elect will also be made righteous by the obedience of the one man, Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

By the offense of one man, Adam all men who are condemned will die, and all men who are justified are justified by the one man, Jesus Christ unto life.

"Might abound". Might increase; that is, would be more apparent, more violent, more extensive. The introduction of the Mosaic law, instead of diminishing the sins of men, only increases the guilt for breaking them, thereby making the offense increase through willful disobedience.

Ro 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Ro 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Ro 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Many Blessings,
RW

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 08:12 PM
Hi Yuke,

Had you considered that both statements are true? Yuke: "There was sin in the world before the command was given but it wasn't taken into account because there was no command." Welder: "Doesn't the Bible declare that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God? Not before the commandment was given, but after it was broken."

Sin was in the world before Adam sinned, but sin is not imputed if there is no law. So even though sin was in the world it did not pass upon all men, unto death, until man disobeyed the law. It is DEATH by sin that entered, or the consquences for disobedience that entered into the world by one man. As far as the law was concerned, sin entered the world by one man (Adam), and death passed upon all men. As far as the sin, it was in the world, even before the law, but it was not counted as sin before the command, "do not eat" was given, and man disobeyed.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Ro 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

By one man, Adam, death and condemnation entered the world through sin. Through the offense of the one man MANY will die. And MANY will receive the gift of grace by one man, Jesus Christ. For the free gift is of MANY (not all or every offence) offences unto justification. So then death reigns by one man's offense, but those who receive grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

It is not sin, (though every man sins) that comes upon all men after the fall, it is condemnation and death. Condemnation or death is upon all men through the offense of one man, Adam. Through the righteousness of Christ comes justification of life upon all men. Does that mean that every man is justified through the righteousness of Christ?

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

No! Because only many, (not every man) were made sinners, and only many shall be made righteous. Many, who are elect from the foundation of the world were made sinners, and therefore condemned to death. But the same many elect will also be made righteous by the obedience of the one man, Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

By the offense of one man, Adam all men who are condemned will die, and all men who are justified are justified by the one man, Jesus Christ unto life.

"Might abound". Might increase; that is, would be more apparent, more violent, more extensive. The introduction of the Mosaic law, instead of diminishing the sins of men, only increases the guilt for breaking them, thereby making the offense increase through willful disobedience.

Ro 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Ro 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Ro 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger, I believe that I've been around long enough that you know I agree with you on many points.

If we are to say that sin was in the world before the command, then we are to deny that sin entered the world through Adam.

Sin was here before the law was given. However, sin was not here before Adam allowed sin to enter the world.

As for the many being made sinners....

This was to reflect a mirror image. The many (elect) were made sinners by the transgression and they shall be made righteous by Christ.

If Paul had decided to go all with being made sinners, then for the comparison to work, he would have had to go all with being justified.

So, while Paul stated the many are made sinners for the comparison to work, I think most of us can agree that if you believe the elect were made sinners by Adam's transgression, then the unelect were also made sinners by Adam's transgression.

divaD
Dec 14th 2008, 08:37 PM
Sin was in the world before Adam sinned, but sin is not imputed if there is no law.


That's not what Scripture is implying, is it?

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


If sin first entered into the world thru Adam, then how could sin have already been in the world? That sounds like a contradiction. Either sin entered into the world thru Adam, or ir did not. It had to enter the world first thru Adam, then sin would be in the world. I fail to see how you can have it both ways. Adam sinned. And because of that, sin entered the world thru him.

Also, doesn't RO 5:12 and 5:14 explain RO 5:13? Neither of these verses, 12 nor 14, speak of sin being in the world before Adam sinned.

IamBill
Dec 14th 2008, 10:40 PM
That's not what Scripture is implying, is it?

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


If sin first entered into the world thru Adam, then how could sin have already been in the world? That sounds like a contradiction. Either sin entered into the world thru Adam, or ir did not. It had to enter the world first thru Adam, then sin would be in the world. I fail to see how you can have it both ways. Adam sinned. And because of that, sin entered the world thru him.

Also, doesn't RO 5:12 and 5:14 explain RO 5:13? Neither of these verses, 12 nor 14, speak of sin being in the world before Adam sinned.

Yup, to my understanding, There was only one law given, it was to Adam it concerned the fruit of the tree -and the tree is in the 'now vacant of man' garden .... when was the Next Law/s given and to whom ? Moses.
But in that time-span I think is what 13-14 are referring to.
:hmm: -- a law cannot be broken, until that law is made -regardless of whether or not the offense is being made.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 09:25 AM
Roger, I believe that I've been around long enough that you know I agree with you on many points.

If we are to say that sin was in the world before the command, then we are to deny that sin entered the world through Adam.

Sin was here before the law was given. However, sin was not here before Adam allowed sin to enter the world.

Hi Yuke,

I apologize for forgetting to reply sooner.

Sin was here, that is in the world, just as Paul says it was, before man disobeyed the command or before the law was given. Sin was here through Satan, who has always been here, and he is a liar from the beginning, therefore sin was in the world from the beginning. Sin was not imputed until man disobeyed God's command (law) "thou shalt not." So death by sin entered the world through mankind and this is why Paul says also that sin entered the world through the one man, Adam, causing death to pass upon all men because Adam is the representative of all mankind, therefore through him all men sin. Without the imputation of sin, there is no law, and if there is no law then sin is not known.



As for the many being made sinners....

This was to reflect a mirror image. The many (elect) were made sinners by the transgression and they shall be made righteous by Christ.

If Paul had decided to go all with being made sinners, then for the comparison to work, he would have had to go all with being justified.

So, while Paul stated the many are made sinners for the comparison to work, I think most of us can agree that if you believe the elect were made sinners by Adam's transgression, then the unelect were also made sinners by Adam's transgression.

I did not mean to imply that every man was not made a sinner when I said many were made sinners. Paul is speaking only of the elect when he says "many" were made sinners, and the same "many" are also made righteous. That "through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." That does not mean that death through sin has not passed upon all men. This is simply showing us that it is not God's intention to save every man, but only the many (His elect) who are also made dead through the offense of one. This same many (His elect only) will be given the gift of grace by one man, Jesus Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 09:30 AM
That's not what Scripture is implying, is it?

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

If sin first entered into the world thru Adam, then how could sin have already been in the world? That sounds like a contradiction. Either sin entered into the world thru Adam, or ir did not. It had to enter the world first thru Adam, then sin would be in the world. I fail to see how you can have it both ways. Adam sinned. And because of that, sin entered the world thru him.

Also, doesn't RO 5:12 and 5:14 explain RO 5:13? Neither of these verses, 12 nor 14, speak of sin being in the world before Adam sinned.

Hi Diva,

I believe it is both. Sin was in the world through Satan before the command was given, but sin, and death by sin also entered the world when man disobeyed the command. See post #40.

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Dec 18th 2008, 12:01 PM
I was reading some of Paul's writings on the law when a huge thought occurred to me (would love to claim it was the Holy Spirit, but only if it is correct) and obviously, I get a little excited when that happens.

You have two trees in the midst of the Garden.

One is the tree of life.

One is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Are they symbolic or two actual trees?

If symbolic, what do they represent?

They are both. Do a study on the Tree of Life. It's mentioned in different passages. Also, look at what happened when one ate from the tree of life. What/who else can cause that to happen? Once you get an idea for the tree of life, then the tree of knowledge can be an interesting study too. It was a HUGE tree. There are things about it that attracted Satan to it.

There are a LOT of things about these trees in scripture. Sometimes though they are not called by their proper names. For instance, one passage might say "I was placed in the midst of your garden".

Hope you enjoy your study!

Blessings,

Mark

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 12:46 PM
Sin is sin. Unrighteousness is sin. Satan was kicked out of heaven and cast into the depths of the earth before Adam was made , created, and formed. This would be Genesis 1:2

Satan who was called Lucifer before being cast out of heaven, plus one third of the angels with him. These all followed Lucifer in trying to overthrow God's throne. As foolish as this may seem, he indeed did try. God cast him out of heaven and this act by Lucifer was an unrighteous act, thus it was sin. So sin was "in the world" before Adam.

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 02:23 PM
I believe it is both. Sin was in the world through Satan before the command was given



Hi RogerW. Well since you put it like that, I won't disagree with you. I can agree with that perspective.:)

neverleaveunorfors
Dec 19th 2008, 12:46 PM
my brother that spoke on Ezekiel is on the mark .The tree of knowledge of good and evil is Eze 28:11 -19 remember what Eve said of this tree how it was pleasent to the eyes and a tree desirable to make one wise (just a note God never said least u touch it you shall die ,was this the first lie told ?} any how .Eze 28 speaks of Satan Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty 28:12 ok now {remember covering cherub annoited cherub ok 28;17 wisdom and splendor is this not what gen speaks of ,of this tree and then God cast him to the ground cast out of the mountin of God now isaiah 14;12 cut down to the ground the word of God has so many refferences to people as some type of tree read it . now for the tree of life revelation 22:2 here is this so called fruit but it is not a piece of fruit (there is more but dont have time now just put this to thought The root of Jess which in turn is Jesus;)