Why didnt God just cut down the Tree of Life?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

We all know the story of the tree of life.
Whether metaphorical or literal, one must be devil’s advocate here (i love to be confrontational sometimes)

I tend to be rather logical about what goes on around me and i don’t beat around the bush…for me its easier to just remove temptation out of the equation. In the spirit of that thought…

Why kick them out of the garden? Why didn’t God just cut the flaming tree down?

We talk about God wouldn’t be the sort of God who does this kind of thing, but honestly, leaving that tree there as a reminder is a lot like intentionally leaving chocolates in front of a 5 year old child…the poor kid would go nuts and certainly not grow up with good memories of the parent who did that to them. Today we call that a form of child abuse don’t we?

2

Well - but this is just it! Here is an example where literal understandings suffer a difficulty that deeper readings don’t. If we’re speaking of a literal tree, then indeed … why?

But if the tree of knowledge of good and evil (not to mention the tree of life - which shows up again in Revelation) represent significant things then one can begin to at least muse and reflect on why God would not just “remove it”. For example, yes - a good parent wouldn’t tempt their five year old child with chocolates while at the same time forbidding them from partaking; but, as the child comes of age, a good parent will learn to “let go” and not demand obedience in compulsary ways, in the hopes that as a child learns independence, they will hopefully learn to make their own good choices and honor their parents out of a sense of their own love and no longer because the parent compels. One might then ask, “why should a parent ever ‘let go’? Because wouldn’t that be just like placing unecessary temptations in front of their child?” But we can see in this case why such a thing is needed. One does not do their growing children any favors by trying to maintain a protective moral bubble around them all the way up into their adolescent and young-adult years. And those families that do attempt that - it almost never ends well. True love only exists when it is freely given (or given back) - it can never be coerced or compelled. I think God wants true love from us.

It isn’t a perfect analogy, of course, - we are never independent of God, and God is never really “letting us go” in the sense of abandoning us. But it may help us see how examples do exist of what the tree of knowledge could stand for. Other examples could be volunteered as well.

3

Why didn’t God just cut down the Tree of Life?

For me this is equivalent to asking why God didn’t just give up on us and start over? God could just wipe out the universe and start over from scratch. But wouldn’t that be like killing your family because they are not good enough and starting a new one. Surely you don’t think God would want us to do such a thing. But if so then why would you think God would do this?

Why would you think the tree of life is a temptation???

I think it represents a relationship with God – eternal life. The severing of our relationship with God and losing eternal life was a consequence of the fall. Temptation doesn’t come into it. The flaming sword is simply the truth.

Do you really think eternal life is something you get by eating a magical fruit from a tree? Funny how Jesus never mentioned any such thing.

Why should they live by the sweat of their brow rather than have everything simply given to them?

That would be because they had to learn that blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their mistakes simply doesn’t work. How better to learn this than to face a life where they would have to be responsible for everything they get?

This is the way people usually talk about the other tree. Saying things like this about the tree of life sounds really weird to me. Why wouldn’t God want us to see what we have lost? Why wouldn’t God want us to long for it and try to get back where we were?

As as for taking this literally… this is one where the Bible clearly doesn’t.

In Proverbs 3:18 it identifies the tree of life with wisdom
Proverbs 11:30 The fruit of righteousness is the tree of life
Proverbs 13:12 A desire fulfilled is the tree of life
Proverbs 15:4 a gentle tongue is the tree of life

Tree with magical fruit giving eternal life? None of these sound like anything of the kind.

4

Brainstorming . . .

  1. Eden wasn’t just about them, it was a place where the heavenly realm intersected with the earthly realm.
  2. Their job from the start was to “gardenize” the whole world.
  3. most importantly, what kind of message would that send?

They’d introduced a flaw into the Garden; would adding another flaw fix that? They were supposed to be “gardeners”; does cutting down a whole tree because of something else make a good example of how to care for a garden?

“Just” cutting down the Tree would have sent a message that violence and death are good resorts for solving issues. Somehow that strikes me as serving as a victory for the Adversary!

So you put the chocolates in a safe out in the barn shed where they can’t go anyway.

What kind of memories would come from cutting down the favorite tree of all?

1 Like
5

But for the meaning of the story it can be treated as literal – that’s one of the weird and fun things about ANE literature; it can have a dual nature, its meaning drawn out by taking it literally and then augmented by additional ways of viewing it.

This assumes they weren’t partaking of the Tree of Life: I think they were, and that’s what kept them (conditionally) immortal – and note that in Revelation we get the Tree back! – so when they were thrown out they began to die.
Which makes the situation so much more critical than with candies for a kid!

2 Likes
6

Actually, back then it might have been, at least for their mortal bodies – like a super immune-booster of some sort.
Though we can’t forget that if an elephant happened to fall on Adam, there were going to be broken bones!

Thought: the Garden was an in-depth immersive experience to show them what they were supposed to make the rest of the world like. Of course this assumes that had they persevered they would have been living in (or maybe just visiting) the Garden and working to “gardenize” the world beyond.

Kind of like tripping falling into the pool and learning to swim, as opposed to starting on the poolside and taking lessons.

Ooh – good questions!

gogirl
beer

But if you take it as literal within the story, and then note that we don’t now have access, then ask, “So what works like the Tree of Life for us now?”, those are good conclusions/insights.

3 Likes
7

That question is probably missing the point of the story, but even if it was a source of temptation the angel with the flaming sword would be a deterrent. Also, considering the tree of life comes back in Revelation (Rev. 22:2), my guess is that humanity was not meant to be permanently severed from access to the tree of life, or what it represents. Eventually, access will be restored, so there is no point in destroying it. It is more like telling a kid that he cannot have chocolate now because he is misbehaving but that he will get the chocolate after dinner if he does behave.

2 Likes
8

Now heres another elephant in the room…devils advocate again

The bible says God made for Adam and Eve garments out of animal skins right…so this is stated just hefore he banished them from the garden…

Gen 3:21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.

That means an animal died to provide those skins…and given in the story they are still in the garden at this point in time, it [the animal from which that skin came] died in that garden. So again, why not just cut the tree down…he killed an animal right before their eyes and spilled it blood on the ground in the very place where both trees were located!

Some caveats

  1. It isnt of any consequence at this point in the discussion to raise ANE vs YEC…this is the same dilemma for both world veiws here
  2. I know the theological reason why the tree wasnt cut down, however i think Christians dont really seriously recognise thr true implications of the belief in those two trees and what actually happened there…particularly that an animal was almost certainly killed in the Garden of Eden and its blood spilled on tue ground right there.
  3. Animal blood being spilled on the ground because of the need to cover Adam and Eves nakedness…this i think tells us why God said “cursed is the ground because of you”

Now there is some rather interesting theological stuff about the killing of the animal in the garden:

  1. An animal is killed and its blood must have been spilled on the ground
  2. the dead carcass had to be buried somewhere…likely where it was killed
  3. this is the first evidence we have in the bible directly where talk of dead entering the ground is found (again…not an argument for YEC here…this is of no consequence because even for metaphorical/allegorical theology its perfectly ok for either theology)
  4. I would argue that the curse God presented to Adam in Genesis 3:17 is manifest directly because of blood of a live animal being spilled onto the ground so that God could make garments to cover Adam and Eves nakedness

cursed is the ground because of you;
through toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

  1. Now here’s the really interesting part…

The killing of the animal in the garden of Eden and the spilling of its blood on the ground, that is found in the earthly Mosaic Sanctuary service given in the Sinai Desert to the Israelites!

The sins of the people were transferred to the sanctuary via the blood of their sacrifices…this blood defiled the tabernacle and each year

On the Day of Atonement (which we know 100% is representative of the death and resurrection of Christ in AD31/33) the tabernacle and inner Sanctuary were cleansed via a special service.

So what that means is that theologically, Adam and Eve caused the corruption of the earth because of their sin…the corruption enterring the earth through the death of an animal in order to clothe them from their nakedness…

Christ died on the cross so that his blood (on the Israelite Day of Atonement Tabernacle Service each year) would cleanse the Sanctuary (the earth) from the corruption of sin caused by the above spilling of blood in order to clothe their nakedness…Christs blood reverses the process of the animal blood on the earth…

Note what Paul says in the book of Hebrews…

A Sabbath-Rest for God’s People

(Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 16:22-36)

1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

God’s Word is Living and Active

12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Jesus the Great High Priest

14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

also note 1 Peter 2:24

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

direct link between Christs crucifixion and the tree in the garden of Eden. Christs death goes right back to that specific event…Christ bears the burden of temptation (in that for one thing, he could have easily saved himself) and overcomes sin on the tree at His crucifixion. He makes right what Adam and Eve got very wrong.

9

It is a good point to note that God gave skins to A & E. That is something where we can see a strong message.
However, all our interpretations about that detail of the story are just interpretations. Even if we two would agree about an interpretation, it would not become a fact.
The only details told as ‘facts’ within the context of the story are:
(1) God gave
(2) garments made out of skins
(3) to A & E
(4) after the disobedience.

Everything else are assumptions and interpretations, also the assumption that God killed animals in the Garden of Eden to get the skins for the garments.

2 Likes
10

So let me ask you…the following question:

lets go back to early America soon after colonisation. Pretend you are there out West on horseback. You happen to pass by an Indian riding on horseback clothed in animal skins. How do you suppose that Indian got those skins…wouldn’t you agree that scientifically, someone must have killed an animal and made those skins?

Moving on from the Indian illustration above, bible writers have talked directly about this…if you read the Old Testament Sanctuary Service carefully, you will note that it specifically addresses the events of the fall of man in the garden (whether literal or metaphorical). Read the book of Leviticus (and even Hebrews) it’s all there in black and white.

It requires no more interpretation than a normal reading of language (from the writings of Moses and those of Paul 1500 years after Moses)

11

Maybe we agree in some interpretations. The point in my comment was that I try to lift up the difference between what is told (the text of the story), what our assumptions are and what our interpretations based on our assumptions are. Your response suggests that you have grown into one worldview so tightly that you are not always able to separate your basic assumptions from what the text tells.

One difference between seeing a hunter with skins and the Garden of Eden story is that the Garden of Eden story describes such acts of God that we cannot see in our surroundings. What God did in the story may be different than what is ‘normal’ in our surroundings. God with skins may tell that animals had to die somewhere but it is not selfevident because we are talking about exceptional acts of God.

My own interpretation about this detail is that it can be somehow connected to the later teachings about how the life in blood was needed to cover the sins of disobedience. I try to keep in mind that this is just my interpretation about the detail, not something that the story itself tells. My interpretation is based on the assumption that the later teachings about the ritual covering of sins by killing animals were part of the same packet of teachings than the Garden of Eden story, so we may draw connections between the teachings. That is not told in the text, it is an assumption.

2 Likes
12

If God had destroyed or cut down the tree, the obvious implication would be that they could never again come back and eat from it ever…

As @Mervin_Bitikofer pointed out below, the tree of life is still there in the book of Revelation, and people are invited back to said tree to eat from it.

The implication I see certainly seems to be that God separated his people from that tree for a season, with the full intention of inviting them back at some point, no?

2 Likes
13

The only specific animal mentioned in the Eden account has been a snake. A shed snake’s skin can be used without killing the snake. This would explain how God could cover the humans with animal skins without any mention of killing an animal.

It also suits the story. Like when the image of a serpent was placed on a pole to help heal the people from serpent bites, here too the serpent may be both part of the problem and used by God to be part of the resolution.

3 Likes
14

I’ve always viewed (rightly or wrongly) the Eden story to be about maturing into adulthood. We all hit a point in our lives where we are no longer innocent in that we understand morality and become responsible for our actions (and become capable of sin). We also learn of our own mortality. We leave the innocence of childhood in much the same way that Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden.

15

Right… and how are your lessons going to go if you display no intention of listening or doing what the teacher tells you? Maybe getting tossed into the pool is just the lesson such a student might need.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that both Proverbs and Jesus speak of “eternal life” as relationship with God rather than simply eating some magical fruit.

I don’t wear any animal skins. They are not needed for clothing. So your implication is that your god is a man from a few thousand years ago who knew of no other way to clothe Adam and Eve than to use animal skins? If this was a bad thing, then you would simply find/make something else to wear. And BTW not all people in the world used animal skins for clothing (Polynesians wove them from grass).

16

Which is specified as a “cherub”, which does not mean a cute little infant, it means one of the cherubim, who in almost all ANE religions were strong and deadly throne guardians dedicated to keeping away the unworthy.

That severely overstates the case. Genesis merely says that He “made . . . garments of skins”.

Wow – that falls into the region of highly speculative theology, or as we called it in grad school, “Speculative Heaps In Theologizing”.

As it stands this is an incomplete sentence. Should there be a semicolon or dash rather than a comma?

That’s an interesting connection. To pursue it . . . would the blood have carried a curse because it wasn’t the blood of the ones who were guilty?

Especially considering that ancient authors had no problem organizing things by topic, so they may have been outside the Garden already.
Not something to build any theology on!

To give an answer much like many you have given, are you saying that an Indian was like God?

Make that “you regularly are not able”.

The Hebrew verb there for “made” is the same as used often in Genesis 1; it could thus be argued that God just formed some animal skins without needing animals.
(Silly, but possible, if you want to play with the limits of the text’s meaning.)

If anything, the assumed shed blood would point to the innocent being slaughtered in place of the guilty, as with Christ – a key part of the Gospel enacted.

Jewish mythology included a story that God took Eden up to (the third) heaven where it and the Tree of Life await being returned to earth – this time as part of the new Jerusalem.

2 Likes
17

Come to think of it, I let a class toss one kid off the diving board who stubbornly didn’t take instruction well.
[What he didn’t know was that I was waiting underwater just in case.]

No, you look for the theological message.
Traditionally it has been seen as a foreshadowing of what would happen with Christ. I sort of lean that way.

18

I would connect looking for such a theology in the text as an example of PEOPLE demanding the death of Christ! Sounds to me like that woman in the Stephen King movie Mist, all those people shouting crucify Him in the Bible – and even a bit like Countess Bathory bathing in the blood of innocents to live forever. Obviously not a Christianity I can find much value in.

So why do I take the Bible seriously and why am I a Christian? It is because I think a lot of the Bible is immersed in the way of thinking of the people of those times. God comes down to us and speaks to us where we are at… certainly trying to affect some improvement so we understand and behave better. Sure this is true of things like slavery, but I think it applies to some of the theology as well. So yes there was a good reason for the whole animal sacrifice talk in the Bible. But notice we don’t do it any more. And it is for the same reasons we don’t need it in our theology any more either.

19

What i am saying is that the same methods of deduction are used if one was living in the wild west 100 years ago and observed “an Indian riding a horse in the wild west wearing an animal skin. We know that skin was once an animal that has been killed for its skin”.

20

oh really…so let me get this straight…you now believe that God snapped his fingers right in front of Adam and Eve and created an animal skin from nothing and then clothed them with said skin?

OK…so if God can manipulate nature and create animals skins without killing an animal, why is it not also possible for God to directly intervene in the earths ecosystem in the 6000 or so years since that time… even a “rapid” catastrophic global flood?

My understanding is that a number of individuals from Biologos do not believe that God manipulates the earth in an ongoing manner…he simply created the science and what we see around us today is “Darwinian Evolution” as a result of the science God created.

You cannot have this both ways, its either one or the other…but not both. The problem here is that Biologos seems to pick and choose which miraculous events in the Bible are literal and which ones are not. Any that disagree with Darwinian Evolution are not literal!

In any case, the Darwinian model in Theism is a fools errand, it cannot reconcile Christs “physical” death on the Cross for the sins of Adam and Eve (as well as all humanity since) because if Creation and the Fall were metaphorical/allegorical, then we do not need a physical sacrifice for atonement.

It gets worse…the physical Second Coming of Christ. Restoration in the physical sense as illustrated by the Bible (Revelation 21) are pointless if Creation and the Fall are metaphorical/allegorical, we can simply evolve into a state of Darwinian Theistic enlightenment!