The Elephant in the Tree
“but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:17 NASB
The knowledge of good and evil – Only one poisonous plant. Just one in a Garden full of feasting. But it all comes down to that one single bite, doesn’t it? We go merrily along our way. We handle the usual adversity. We avoid obvious pitfalls. We experience emotional stability—until we just glance at that tree. You know the one. It’s that one that turns aside your attention. The one that smells like escape from all the pressures of your world. The one that promises satisfaction. The one that says, “This will make you feel that you are good enough.” The genus and species? Malus tentatio. Tree of temptation. But it doesn’t have to have a trunk and leaves. Our individual malus tentatio is the tailor-made version of the call away from God. With a tiny bit of reflection, you can easily describe what that “tree” looks like in your life.
But this raises some disturbing questions. What is the purpose of God’s commandment? Is it just a demand for submission? It is a requirement for blind compliance? “Don’t eat from this tree or I will kill you.” Is that what’s happened here? We realize that sometimes we demand obedience from children without explanation, because they are children and don’t understand the danger. But is Adam a child? Why doesn’t God provide any inkling of the reason for obedience? Furthermore, as Maimonides noted centuries ago, God’s anger is unjustified if Adam and the woman don’t know the difference between right and wrong. They must have known the difference between right and wrong before they ate or the command doesn’t make any sense. If this is true, then what is the meaning of “the knowledge of good and evil”? The Tree can’t give knowledge of duty, obligation or moral commitment. They already knew all that.
Heschel helps us. “Good and evil are not values among other values. Good is life, and evil is death.”[1] If we think of the Tree as one set of values and the commandment as another set of values, we will have missed the great message of this story. The Tree is not one way of life versus another way of life (God’s way). The Tree is death! It might look like it is living, but that is the deceptive quality of existence apart from relationship with God. The seduction of the Tree is that it mimics life. The “knowledge” of this Tree is a derivative of the Hebrew yada’. The word is da’at. It expresses knowing via the senses. “daʿat is a general term for knowledge, particularly that which is of a personal, experimental nature (Prov 24:5). It is also used for technical knowledge or ability such as that needed for building the tabernacle and temple (Ex 31:3; 35:31; I Kgs 7:14). daʿat is also used for discernment (Ps 119:66). Both deeds committed unintentionally (Deut 4:42; 19:4; Josh 20:3, 5; bĕlîdaʾat) and mistaken opinions are ‘without knowledge’ (lōʾ daʿat, Prov 19:2).”[2]
God possesses da’at. He teaches men da’at. Da’at is related to wisdom, a reflective process that begins with yir’at YHVH, the fear of the Lord. But the Genesis use of da’at needs some careful qualification, for in this case, da’at is about death. TWOT seems mistaken in endorsing the explanation of Cassuto.
daʿat is also used for moral cognition. Thus the tree in the Garden of Eden was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9, 17). By eating its fruit man came to know in a way comparable to the knowledge of God (see above). This important reference may also be taken as the figure of speech known as merism to indicate objective awareness of all things both good and bad. In this sense the sinful pain did become like God (Gen 3:22). Cassuto says, “Before they ate of the tree of knowledge, the man and his wife were like small children who know nought of what exists round them” (U. Cassuto, Genesis, vol. I, p. 112).[3]
Adam and the woman are not small children. If they were, the process of choice and the subsequent punishment are inexplicable. What parent would be so harsh on a child? Life-long toil, pain, separation, death—these hardly seem justified if we are dealing with the moral capacity of a child. Heschel’s insight must be given its full weight. This story is not about obedience and consequences. It is about life and death. Adam is no child, learning to grow up through his own mistakes. Adam is in mortal danger as long as the Tree is a conscious reality. As are we. The Tree is an attempt to have life apart from God. The knowledge it purports to give is independence from the nishmat hayyim (the breath of life – Genesis 2:7[4]). Life is what God breathes into Man. It does not exist independently in Man. It is borrowed animation.
“Man’s sin is in his failure to live what he is. Being the master of the earth, man forgets that he is servant of God.”[5] He forgets that he does not own his life. He merely enjoys participation in a divine quality. The Tree is pseudo-life, the appeal to consider living a possession rather than an account payable. Every adult faces this choice. And every choice to base living on the experience of the senses, apart from the voice of the divine, is a choice leading to death, no matter how splendid the packaging.
So examine your Tree carefully. In its vibrancy, its splendor, its promise is another meaning of da’at—cunning.
Topical Index: tree of the knowledge of good and evil, da’at, Cassuto, Genesis 2:17
[1] Abraham Heschel, I Asked for Wonder, p. 83.
[2] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (366–367). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 1999 (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (367). Chicago: Moody Press.
[4] It is interesting that the Hebrew hayyim is plural. It is literally, “the movement of lives.” That requires some further investigation.
[5] Abraham Heschel, I Asked for Wonder, p. 67.
So much talk and discussion regarding what the forbidden fruit was. What kind of tree it was. I’ve been thinking about this, as we all have, I’m sure, for quite a while.
The above description tells me exactly what kind of tree it IS, what kind of fruit it IS and what it looks like. It does make sense. This tree grows the seed of death for all of us who succumb to its taste in our mouths. Every moment the tree is before us with an invitation to partake.
Now, does this open the door to hasatan being the action portion of the yetzer haRa that we have intricately designed in to our very makeup? Our yetzer haRa drives us, pushes us, energizes us through our choice of decision and then becomes our adversary to invade and occupy with death inside the fence guarding life which YHVH places in our lives? Choosing each day actually is a matter of life and death, we have just painted over the original canvas missing the reality of YHVH’s kingdom.
But, then, if Adam was driven out of the garden, where are we now? If we have been driven out of the ‘place’ where one can live forever, what is the path back to that place? Is it walking an aisle and saying some select words, or somewhere else?
Just thinking out loud. This Skip guy. He sure messes with my brain. But . . . I love it! There is life in this search. I want it.
Love is a gamble: it risks it all. But for love to be love, the risk has to be real. Heaven risked it all for you and me on that tree-cross. Adam and Eve gambled all they had in an effort to up their ante. They risked it all the other way at that other tree. They had to be free (unlimited choice), mature (autonomously responsible to take the authority for their own lives and do with it what they wished), and they had to have been fully aware of the choices or else they would not have been true choices – they would have been snares or illusions. I am sure they were told plenty in those walks-n-talks they enjoyed in the cool of the evening. I am sure their heavenly Father DID tell them over and over. Why wouldn’t He have, even if Genesis is not a stenographer’s account?
But to protect the Deceiver’s choices, as well as the Garden pair’s, YHVH could not disclose exactly HOW the deal might go down. It becomes immaterial to me at this point what He ‘knew’ beforehand or not: to hold a possibility in your hand – knowledge meaning EXPERIENCE (at least it does in Hebrew) – but choosing not to exercise it, is the same as not to possess that knowledge for us. I don’t have any idea what it is for Him, but I think He chooses somehow to not experience all those possible futures ahead of time out of respect for the free will He gives His cognizant creatures. Like Skip says, I think He gets there when we do, in that sense.
I am sure He made that serpent with as much care as He had expended on that fallen archangel or that first man, but I am sure He deliberately made it susceptible, like the rest of His creation, to corruption – which includes being hijacked. I think the snake must have been a hijack job.
I think Eve must have chosen to deceive herself. I can see that she chose to play the WORDS, in imitation of the snake. Monkey see, monkey do. That’s our hardwiring, in fact. I also think we were made to do as we are done by. She saw the snake play the words, and she wanted to try, too. In an attempt to imitate the Word, she changed the wording they had been given, but in so doing, she deceived herself. The snake was already modeling self-deception: she just copied it. At this point, it is immaterial whether or not the Deceiver ‘knew’ what he was doing, in a full sense, either. I think, more than anything, the misery of sin arises out of loneliness – the creatures cannot forget the connectedness they were made to enjoy. I guess its no fun being a lone rebel. I think the fallen archangel wanted company. He wanted dominion, we know, for we are told he wanted to “be like the Most High”, and for that, he needed his own subjects. Deception and Accusation are the names of his game, and both were employed here. By these fingerprints, left at the crime scene, we know who the criminal-in-charge must be. Here, where Adam abrogated the position, is where he surely became the “prince of this world”.
Faith is a correct assessment of future reality. I think the forgery of faith is presumption. Sin assumes it can (dis)order that future (free choice) any way it wants to, and the future has to comply. I think Eve presumed wrongly, in her choice to eat the fruit, because she had already lost her trust in the warnings, which surely would have included not to stray alone, or near the tree. Disobedience ripens out of a disregard for warnings, and I think we lose the clear sight of faith when we step out of the trust in those warnings that love must have, and enter the ground of presumption. Near that tree, sin was already crouching at her door, in a very real sense, and her sight was already beginning to go. You can only deceive yourself that you can ‘see’ if your true sight has already been lost. If we choose not to read the warning signs, we have chosen blindness. At that point, I think we lose the ability to see the edge of our own cliff.
Wanting to “be like the Most High” is a worthy endeavor. I want to be like the most high, in his image, in his likeness as much as is possible. I just don’t want to replace him with myself. I have always had a negative image of to “be like the Most High” because of how it was framed and played out. Properly done, it is what we all strive for, is it not? Yeshua was the exact image of his father. I want to be like Yeshua in order to be like the Most High.
You are right. I think where sin goes wrong is when it wants the results of love without having to take the risks of love. It wants the kingdom without the risk, the work or the cross.
Hello, The elephant in the tree is sometimes so near that it can be not only in the living room but also in the same room as you or myself. I know my elephant and he is no gentleman when he comes calling. In the name of Yeshua I tell the elephant to leave immediately and ask Yeshua to strengthen me in the process! My elephant comes with a picture or an idea of what might be but there is no evidence to back his claim. It appeals to a deep longing within. Yes, Heschel is on to something to suggest life and death are the issue here not values or lifestyle choices.
Read the curses and blessings found in Deuteronomy 28. You may long to “be the head and not the tail” until the elephant comes to bully!
David R
I have an elephant ( a pink one) that I have tried to get rid of. Several times. Any suggestions for how to get rid of permanently? it is a matter of logistics. And believe you me, my pink elephant is in my bedroom, so to speak, the elephant is that close! Help!
As I wrote in Crossing, the idea that we get “rid” of the elephant is not what we find in the text. What we find is a life of dealing with the consequences of owning the elephant AND the hope of God’s transformation of elephantitus. The old life never really departs. It is just given a new direction, and in the process, transformed into a new story. You might want to read the book.
Hello Tarawind and others,
I think Skip reminded us that we don’t get rid of the elephant but we gradually at God’s pace do get transformed. I read a lot and a current novel has a sentence in the narrative that supports giving the elephant a chance. Work around the elephant in other words. Another read from a global news service soundly disagreed in pointing out there is a difference between acting on behavior for love and acting on behavior out of lust. I prefer the article citation over the novel exhortation. I pray that God sends you whatever it is you need to aid your decision for further transformation. I ask that He helps us keep our respective elephants penned up..
David R
What if its not the elephant, but the direction? Things go amuck when they are going the wrong way.
The elephant’s direction or yours?
Believe it or not, mine. I did not believe that until I tried it. When I changed, everything around me did, too.
Laurita, “When I changed” would it be understood as when I hit the total frustration point, cried out to YHVH and changed, or something to that effect? I wish we knew more about the Samaritan woman’s life post Yeshua telling her she was forgiven, got a new start and directed to go sin no more. The prayer concerning the evil inclination is there for a very, very good reason, us!
David R
David, I think you must know the place! For me, change, true change, can only happen when we become willing to let go what is in our hand,which usually happens as a result of pain. (Heaven, I am sure, did not choose that pain for us, but I think it is we that seem to not be willing to consider another way until we cannot possibly go any further.) Change is a trade. Repentance is a trade. I have to give up something – um, that would be the nothing that is in my hand – before there is room for the real stuff.
Change is also about returning me from being the tail to being the head, which I think is a statement about becoming free from being chained to a reality that is determined by the past – which is what built the elephant, after all – to being able to leave the past behind, which no one in the flesh has ever yet figured out how to do. I think being the head is about making choices that actually work, instead of always just helplessly managing chaos. The elephant at this point is immaterial, for when I get redeemed ( which is that forgiveness that hands me a chance to start again) in a place, that redemption includes my entire reality, along with me. The elephants in my life have metamorphosed at the same rate I have. Amazing!
Hi Skip, do I detect some frustration that people are not understanding your words. Ya know, I have to say in all kindness being from the south, I read another God loving person’s blog, I don’t feel ‘stupid’. I read your TWand the posts. Most of the time I feel ‘stupid’. I feel lost. But I do my best and find myself attempting to comprehend. Love your stuff but frustrating! About Deut 28 – any thoughts you might share Skip as David certainly shared his. I much appreciate but again lost in the OT
Here’s what I suggest. This journey started about 13 years ago. It is really my personal journey to understand what the text says and what it means (two different things). That means about 6000 Today’s Word editions have already been published and (hopefully) absorbed. If you are coming late to the party, it would seem confusing. Try going back a few years and catching up. See if that helps.
Hey Skip, thanks. Will consider your advice.
When I read this today I knew I had recently read something about the Hebrew word da’at. After some searching I found it in one of the books I am currently reading. It is in a book by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks titled “The Great Partnership” with the subtitle of “Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning”. In the section that I found his comments about da’at he is basically talking about the difference between Greek and Hebrew thinking (where have we heard that before?). For context he is talking about the nineteenth century and how most people think Darwin’s ideas dealt a crushing blow to the religious world view of the Bible. After giving a few examples of Greek thinking that could be shaken by his ideas he then says:
“The Hebrew Bible never thought in these terms. The heavens proclaim the glory of God; they do not prove the existence of God. All that breathes praises its Creator; it does not furnish philosophical verification of a Creator. In the Bible, people talk to God, not about God. The Hebrew word da’at, usually translated as ‘knowledge’, does not mean knowledge at all in the Greek sense, as a form of cognition. It means intimacy, relationship, the touch of soul and soul. God, for the Bible, is not to be found in nature for God transcends nature, as do we whenever we exercise our freedom. In Hebrew the word for universe, olam, is semantically related to the word ‘hidden’, ne’elam. God is present in nature but in a hidden way.”
I have always enjoyed anything I have read by Rabbi Sacks and I am thoroughly enjoying this book. And, although I am only about a third of the way through it, I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the relationship between science and religion and the view of this relationship from a Hebrew point of view.
Thanks. It will be on my list.
You’re welcome Skip. And thanks for keeping me busy reading some of the books that you use for resources. I always look at the footnotes to see who you are quoting. For example, when I ordered Rabbi Sacks book I also ordered “I asked for Wonder” by Abraham Heschel. I haven’t got started on that one yet. But thanks to you Heschel has become one of my favorites.
KNOWLEDGE – SURELY DIE.
Jesus and Paul referred to be separated from God implies to be dead. (Later history)
Hosea came and declared that the people go astray due to the lack of knowledge. (Later reprimand)
The catch 22, which knowledge is relevant to God and His creation and which is to mans understanding or concept of God’s creation?
I often hear the claim from believers that for this or that reason we are born today – own knowledge, own perception, own justification is this not the knowledge that separates us from God? Could this not be the same knowledge that the snake tempted Eve to investigate and Eve “fed” Adam with…
After reading Skip’s explanation of the creation of male and female in Genesis and then how Adam – red earths – made the declaration that Eve is from his bone and flesh. (Guardian Angel) I started understanding Jesus’ and Paul’ declarations that all knowledge that justifies our life and own righteousness is bone and flesh of our own and with this the understanding that like the beast of the felt when I solely concentrate this reason for being alive all I do is feed my flesh and bone, and find myself naked or short of God’ purpose – and this knowledge separates us from God and His intent – and why we as Adam and Eve will surely die.
And the invite to eat of the tree of life and live for every…
JOB’s history and the change in Job’s attitude when God personally intervened and Job started praying for His friends – is this not to find the life that leads us to live forever… Which has been around before the creation narration…
Why Job as my explanation for this is how I understand the biblical records that the Job dialogue is the oldest record of God’s interaction with man. Moses narrated a specific history and account in Genesis, but to understand this History we may need to dig into the History before this declaration to get understanding rather than the records of peoples attempts to understand this history thereafter… Including the vocabulary used…
Skip: The one that smells like escape from all the pressures of your world. The one that promises satisfaction.
This is a nice explanation of how the devil dresses himself as an angel of light. and how easy we fall for this. I doubt if God wanted this to be our concern as the one that causes the fall is the one that carries the burden not the fallen…
Laurita: He deliberately made it susceptible, like the rest of His creation, to corruption.
This sounds as if we are conditioned to sin. Which is interesting as Jesus said that if we believe we have no sin He will create/give… Sounds very weird but the reality is that the devil only becomes active in our life when we become active in God’ ways… Until then he has no work to do it is only when we start having faith and conviction that we start experiencing the impact of temptation – The elephant in the tree, not the elephant tree interesting explanation that Skip provided.
Mel: In the Bible, people talk to God, not about God.
Thank you for this important reminder, we need to consult God more often than we consult each other, but we need to share as we are consulted as we cannot teach others we can just provide them some minor knowledge of how to understand… God will provide all the rest so that all praise and glory come to Him and not the creation…
Well, Seeker, if you could call access to death (which that free choice between that life and that death has to include) being “conditioned to sin”, then you could equally say that we are conditioned to life, too. I think we, through grace, are provided a balanced choice at all times. Sin makes things unfair, but only if we choose sin to win. Grace, if we let it, will always provide a ram in the thicket. The choice will always be fair, even if we have lost the sight to see it.
I like your point that temptation grows in strength as we grow, but I would also like to suggest that, in my experience, we can also grow in our ability to avoid temptation, and to shut the door in its face, too. We do not have to put up with it like sitting ducks. To have the full power of choice is also to have the power to tell the Tempter to get behind us. We can revenge disobedience when our obedience is fulfilled. When we stand on the promises of the Word (which would include obeying our end of the conditions that those promises outline for us) that trust gives us the legal right to change the station from Radio Satan to the other one. Temptation only has power over us if we have not decided yet.
Have you read of the gospel of grace… This is the latest trend in trying to convince people that it is only through grace that we are saved, instead of as Laurita has explained that we must decide and control. The grace is that we are empowered to make these choices when needed and not when we believe the going get’s tough. For it is only when we eat of the body of Christ and drink of His blood that we have communion with Him and God takes over and works through us… Sorry not a christian view my personal conviction for that is why I trust and believe and not because of a promise or covenant made to others thousands of years before I was born.
I once read of believers believing because they are tuned into radio WIIIFM: What Is In It For Me…