Now for those who have been engaging in this discussion (you know who you are) here are some commentary entries for Genesis 2:9 where the tree is first mentioned and also Genesis 3:4. Sorry there is a lot to go through, but if you have the time I think it is worth it.
Happy reading and I would love to know what you think.
"In [Genesis 2:] 9b, it may be asked, are the trees two or one; and figurative or literal? The words could refer to a single tree, if translated as ‘even the tree of the knowledge …’, as some have suggested. But while this suits Eve’s expression ‘in the midst of the garden’ in 3:3 (cf. 2:9 on the tree of life), it only creates an insoluble problem at 3:22. The familiar translation is right: there are two trees.
The trees could be meant as metaphors for the respective means (such as wisdom, Prov. 3:18, or unbridled curiosity, Jude 8) of gaining either life or forbidden knowledge; see the further discussion of the knowledge of good and evil, below. Yet there is much to commend the literal sense, naïve though it may seem. It does not make the trees magical (for the Old Testament has no room for blind forces, only for the acts of God), but rather sacramental, in the broad sense of the word, in that they are the physical means of a spiritual transaction. The fruit, not in its own right, but as appointed to a function and carrying a word from God, confronts man with God’s will, particular and explicit, and gives man a decisive Yes or No to say with his whole being.
The knowledge of good and evil is perhaps best understood in this living context. In isolation it could mean a number of things, many of them with biblical support. The phrase can stand for moral or aesthetic discernment (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa. 7:15); yet Adam and Eve are already treated as morally responsible (2:16, 17) and generally percipient (3:6) before they touch the tree. It could be a hebraism for ‘everything’ (i.e. man is not to covet omniscience); yet it can hardly mean this in 3:22. It has often been regarded as sexual awakening, in the light of 3:7; recently R. Gordis suggested that this tree thereby offers a rival immortality to that of the tree of life, in the procreation of a family and a posterity. This too is open to several objections, including the fact that 3:22a is incompatible with it (heaven is sexless in the Old as in the New Testament), and that God instituted marriage after forbidding the use of the tree that is said to symbolize it.
In the context, however, the emphasis falls on the prohibition rather than the properties of the tree. It is shown to us as forbidden. It is idle to ask what it might mean in itself; this was Eve’s error. As it stood, prohibited, it presented the alternative to discipleship: to be self-made, wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator (cf. 3:6). Even more instructive is the outcome of the experiment; see on 3:7. In all this the tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it."
(Kidner, Derek, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967.)
"[Genesis 3:]5. The climax is a lie big enough to reinterpret life (this breadth is the power of a false system) and dynamic enough to redirect the flow of affection and ambition. To be as God,25 and to achieve it by outwitting him, is an intoxicating programme. God will henceforth be regarded, consciously or not, as rival and enemy. Against this human arrogance ‘the obedience of the one’ and his taking ‘the form of a servant’ show up in their true colours (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:7).
So the tempter pits his bare assertion against the word and works of God, presenting divine love as envy, service as servility, and a suicidal plunge as a leap into life, ‘All these things will I give thee …’; the pattern repeats in Christ’s temptations, and in ours."
(Kidner, Derek, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967.)
"[Genesis 2:]9 “The LORD God made all kinds of trees to sprout from the land.” Note that the trees, like man in v 7 and the animals in v 19, are created from the “land.” Some commentators regarded the mention of the trees as sources of food as characteristic of man’s diet before the fall: he was reduced to eating other plants by the curse of 3:22. It is more likely that trees make a garden. Nevertheless, the remark that they were “pleasant to look at and good to eat” emphasizes the abundance of God’s provision.
“The tree of life was in the middle of the garden and also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” The present narrative describes two trees in the middle of the garden, but since this passage explicitly locates the tree of life at the center, and 3:3 locates the other there, it is surmised that this is evidence of the reworking of the earlier Paradiesgeschichte which knew only one tree. This could be corroborated by the awkward way “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is tacked on in this verse. Nevertheless, Dillmann pointed to other sentences where a phrase is tacked on at the end as here (e.g., 1:16; 34:29; Num 13:23) and also pointed out that the tree of life is an essential mark of a perfect garden where God dwells, so that it is unlikely to be secondary either. Furthermore, in terms of the symbolism of this story, both trees correspond to items found in or near the center of Israelite worship (see below).
Trees as a symbol of life are well known in the Bible. The Gilgamesh epic also mentions that its hero found in a deep well a plant that would confer “youth in old age” (11:268–89). Gen 3:22 notes that this tree too would also confer life on those who ate its fruit. Proverbs describes wisdom (3:18), the fruit of the righteous (11:30), a desire fulfilled (13:12), and a gentle tongue as a tree of life: in other words, they give fullness of life to their owners. In Scripture, trees, because they remain green throughout the summer drought, are seen as symbolic of the life of God (e.g., Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). Abraham prayed by a tamarisk he planted (21:33), and green trees were a regular feature of the so-often-denounced Canaanite shrines (e.g., Deut 12:2). Furthermore, it seems likely that the golden candlestick kept in the tabernacle was a stylized tree of life: the falling of its light on the twelve loaves of the presence symbolized God’s life sustaining the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 25:31–35; Lev 24:1–9 [see C. L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah, ASOR DS 2 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 174–81]).
“The tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is found only in this story, and it is much more difficult to.establish its significance. Yet it is most important to try, for it is a key phrase in the narrative, occurring twice in the opening scene, 2:9, 17; once in the first dialogue, 3:5; and finally once again in the closing scene, 3:22.
Two initial points can be made. First, it seems likely that since eating the fruit of the tree of life would have led to immortality, so eating the fruit of the other tree would lead to a knowledge of good and evil too (3:22). Second, we must attempt to establish the meaning of “knowing good and evil” by examining the use of the phrase as a whole here and in other passages, not simply by looking at its component parts.
Suggested interpretations of the phrase “knowing good and evil” include:1. “The knowledge of good and evil” is simply a description of the consequences of obeying or disobeying the commandments (so Kidner and Gispen). Man would have known good had he obeyed the command: he knows evil as a result of disobedience. “The tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it” (Kidner, 63).Valid as this observation is, it is inadequate. As the tree of life offered immortality, so this tree offered knowledge appropriate only to the divine (3:5, 22). Furthermore, this explanation does not fit Deut 1:39 and 2 Sam 19:36 [35], which observe that neither the very young nor the elderly know good and evil.
2. “Knowledge of good and evil” means moral discernment, knowing the difference between right and wrong. Last advocated by Budde (1883), this interpretation is not taken seriously by modern commentators, because, given the narrator’s assumptions, it is absurd to suppose man was not always expected to exercise moral discretion or that he acquired such a capacity through eating the fruit.
3. “Knowledge of good and evil” means sexual knowledge (e.g., Weinfeld). Though this explanation suits the situation of the elderly and the young, it is incongruous in its present context. In Gen 1 and 2 there is no hint that sexual knowledge is reserved for God, or that it was wrong for man (cf. 1:28; 2:18–25). “This explanation then is quite untenable” (Westermann, 1:243).
4. “Knowledge of good and evil” means omniscience (von Rad; cf. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 128). “Good and evil” here stand for the parts which make up the whole, just as the phrase “heaven and earth” means the universe. Though God enjoys omniscience, and the narrative suggests that the woman hoped to gain great knowledge (3:6), it is clear that the man and woman who ate the fruit did not acquire omniscience as a result, merely shame and a recognition of their nakedness (3:7–8).
5. “Knowledge of good and evil” is wisdom (Cassuto, Westermann, Vawter; cf. Clark). It offered “insight” lykCh (3:6). At first sight this interpretation appears as unlikely as moral discernment. It is easy to see that God has wisdom and that children lack it, but more difficult to see why it was forbidden to man. The acquisition of wisdom is seen as one of the highest goals of the godly according to the Book of Proverbs. But the wisdom literature also makes it plain that there is a wisdom that is God’s sole preserve, which man should not aspire to attain (e.g., Job 15:7–9, 40; Prov 30:1–4), since a full understanding of God, the universe, and man’s place in it is ultimately beyond human comprehension. To pursue it without reference to revelation is to assert human autonomy, and to neglect the fear of the LORD which is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7). “For the Yahwist the only proper posture of man if he would be truly wise and lead a full life is faith in God and not a professed self-sufficiency of knowledge. It is in this latter acceptation, then, that man is forbidden ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’” (Vawter, 73). This interpretation appears to be confirmed by Ezek 28, the closest parallel to Gen 2–3, which in highly mythological language describes how the king of Tyre was expelled from Eden for overweening pride and claiming himself to be “wise as a god” (28:6, 15–17). Approaching the issue from a different direction, Clark (JBL 88 [1969] 266–78) has come to similar conclusions: he points to the use of the phrase “good and evil” in legal contexts to describe legal responsibility. In Gen 2–3 he suggests J is using it for moral autonomy, deciding what is right without reference to God’s revealed will. This is confirmed by the allusions to Gen 2–3 in Ps 19:8–10 [7–9] where the law is compared to the tree of knowledge: the law makes wise the simple and enlightens the eyes (cf. Gen 3:6; see D. J. A. Clines, VT 24 [1974] 8–14).
In the garden, the revealed law of God amounted to the warning “Do not eat this tree” on pain of death. In later Israel, many more laws were known, and those who flouted them incurred the divine curse and risked death. Since the law was God-given, it could not be altered or added to by man (Deut 4:2); thus human moral autonomy was ruled out (Josh 4:7). In preferring human wisdom to divine law, Adam and Eve found death, not life. In the tabernacle, the inviolability of the law was symbolized by storing the tables of the law inside the ark itself, the sacred throne of God, guarded and out of sight in the innermost holy of holies, for to see or to touch the ark brought death (Exod 40:20; Num 4:15, 20.)"
(Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 1–15. Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 1987.)
I was doing some reading on this and came across this article which sums up where i think i stand on the question of whether it was a literal tree or not.
ReplyDeleteWhen God planted the Garden of Eden, he placed Adam, the newly created first man on earth, in the garden “to dress it and to keep it.”
God told Adam he could freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden except one — “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” If Adam ate from this tree, God told him, he would die (Genesis 2:16,17).
What was this “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? Was it an actual tree like other trees in the garden? Or was it, as some have suggested, merely a symbol of something to teach readers a moral?
The Hebrew word used here for tree is the same word used for ordinary trees in all 25 uses in the book of Genesis. There is no exception. So the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was clearly an actual type of tree.
Similarly, the word for knowledge is the ordinary word for knowledge or awareness. There is not the slightest indication that we should look for another meaning for knowledge.
What about the words for good and evil? Well, the word for good is the same one used throughout Genesis chapter 1 when God pronounced His creation “good” and “very good.” The meaning may at times be extended to mean beautiful, joyful, bountiful, or pleasurable. Again, there is nothing to indicate we should look for an unusual meaning of good.
The Hebrew word for evil that is used in the tree's description — ra‘ — has the sense of misery, woe, grief, or harm. The word means evil, and perhaps more. It points to something extremely sorrowful — so we can rightly understand that eating the fruit of this tree would reveal knowledge of good and misery.
Adam (and Eve when she was created shortly after) knew only happiness. God had given them all they needed, located them in a beautiful garden of delights, and placed only one restriction on them: Don't eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As they already knew good, eating from this tree would provide only knowledge of calamity, grief, and sorrow.
Some commentators wrongly say that God gave Adam and Eve a choice — they were free to eat from the tree or not eat from it. But God didn't give them a choice. Genesis 2:16 and 17 tell us that “the Lord God commanded the man … of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.” He commanded Adam not to eat from it. He didn't say Adam could eat from it if he wanted to. Certainly Adam and Eve had freewill to disobey God, but no choice was given or implied in God's command.
Puritan Bible commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714), whose commentary on the Bible is still one of the most quoted after 300 years, suggested that the tree itself may not have provided the knowledge of good and evil, but that Adam's disobedience of God's command would reveal evil to Adam and ultimately cause his death. In this view, the tree itself did not have “any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge.”
Eating from the tree would open up some kind of unknown sense in Adam and Eve, somewhat like a person who is born deaf doesn't know there is a sense of hearing until a revelation comes that it exists.
If this is the correct explanation, and it probably is, the tree could have been any type of tree known or unknown. The explanation gains further credibility when you look at the way the Genesis account describes it. God did not say “If you eat from the tree, the fruit will kill you.” He said, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” The death-knell was not in the fruit, but in disobeying God. Adam and Eve were tried in something that was evil only because it was forbidden.
http://www.creationtips.com/tree_of_knowledge.html
Matt: I agree the tree is a literal tree, holding to the idea that the fruit itself was not magical but the consequences of eating the fruit were real. I think if we go down the path of it being imaginary then, where is the sin, or is it imaginary. In terms of the knowledge of evil they found, it certainly was the complete opposite of what they were used to in the garden. Destruction, death, decay; all a result of wanting to be our own god, which is a laughable notion, however even now we still fall into the trap of thinking we know best.
ReplyDelete