Consider This
“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
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil – What exactly is this “tree” in the Garden? Maimonides makes it clear that it cannot be about right and wrong. Adam must already know what right and wrong are in order for the commandment not to eat of the tree to make any sense. It’s also clear that the tree is not the existence good and evil. God Himself declares the creation good, and the creation contains this tree. It is a tragic mistake to think that eating of the tree caused evil. Putting these obvious but inadequate explanations aside, we might think that this tree represents the experience of evil, that is, until they ate from the tree, Adam and the woman were innocent. When they ate from the tree, they experienced the reality of evil. But while it is correct to say that they were innocent (rather than perfect), it’s hard to imagine how eating from the tree could cause them to experience evil. The tree is not the tree of evil. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So why wouldn’t eating of it cause them to experience good as well?
Oswalt provides another point-of-view. In a footnote about Isaiah 45:7 (“causing peace and creating evil”), he points out that “‘the knowledge of good and evil’ in Genesis 2-3 is the ability to define the purpose of one’s existence for oneself. Truly that is to be ‘like God,” and the desire for such is at the heart of human sinfulness. It is important, then, to recognize that the Hebrew word ra’ connotes much more than does the English word ‘evil.’ It encompasses everything from ‘misfortune’ to ‘perversion’ and everything in between—anything that is contrary to God’s plan for the world.”[1] We discover that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is really the representation of determining purpose without God. And the reason that the tree itself is in the Garden is that God wants us to be confronted with the possibility of determining purpose for ourselves. Only when this possibility exists can true and voluntary love exist. I cannot love another if there is no possibility that I can deny or reject the other. Love requires the possibility of indifference to the other. The tree is essential to human and divine relationship. It is, therefore, good. What we do with the possibility of indifference to God or to others determines whether or not the tree becomes good or evil for us. Everything depends on our choice.
Genesis 1-3 is a declaration of the creation of a purposeful God. The entire narrative is about God’s ordering the world according to His purposes. But in the midst of this order there is another agent, an agent who is also an order-maker. The biggest question is whether or not these two semi-independent agents will cooperate for the greater purpose or struggle against each other with opposing purposes. The rest of the Bible is the story of this conflict, but it all begins here, at the tree, when it becomes clear that we can determine who we intend to be without Him.
Topical Index: Genesis 2:17, tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ra’, purpose
[1] John Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths, p. 130.
The Orient is rife with the insistence that light/dark, yin/yang, etc. must ‘balance’ each other; that they ‘need’ each other to be what they are. This is another way of saying that it was a good, even necessary thing, that we chose to eat from that tree. The Bible shows that is not so. If that pair had chosen to obey YHVH and not to have eaten from the tree, they would have retained the ability to learn about the determining of who they were from the standpoint of power, rather from of weakness. That tree LIMITED us to learning in a certain way (experience), which is to say, THROUGH the actual experiencing of what it is to attempt to be ‘ourselves’ without Him. It did nothing to the actual existence (or not) of that possibility of determining who we are in the context of those choices. That possibility was there already. This was not (as is taught in occultism and satan worship) an expansion of reality and the human; it was actually a contraction.
P.S. For the record, light/dark, et al do not ‘balance’ each other. They NEGATE each other.
Skip reviews in several sources the idea of ‘imaging’ God as written in Gen 1: 26-27. The 25 verses preceding those provide the action that God designed us to mimic; Bring Order, Create, Rule over, Subdue, Farm to bring forth seed bearing food, determine time and seasons by the heavens, multiply and in so doing…enlarge the garden.
“…he points out that “‘the knowledge of good and evil’ in Genesis 2-3 is the ability to define the purpose of one’s existence for oneself.” (From Today’s Word)
We are ‘like God’ and in that way we have; Ordered much into chaos (examine our world), Create by rule of desire (watch a commercial), Abuse the ability to Rule and Subdue, Provide our own light 24/7/365, Farm around the clock and with no considerations for season (hot houses), Work by that light 24/7/365 (no need for rest when there was evening and then morning), Produce/create non-seed bearing food (think watermelon, grapes, etc. AND just how crazy is it to produce something that will not replenish, not provide sustenance, and does not benefit…), and we have changed God’s daily clock from dusk to dusk (6pm to 6pm) into midnight to midnight (12pm). AND THAT’S JUST THE BEGINNING!
Is not the “tree” an allegory of our minds and our entire bodies, our left-brain right-brain mind-set that both complements and contrasts our endless brain processing of actions, emotions and logic. Our if/then, either/or, inherited bivalent DNA-driven duality of physical inheritance, the sine qua non of our very being? The essence of our humanity. The “tree” that we and only we are born with that chases the bright elusive butterfly of eternal Love.
Allegory depends entirely on the author. If the author doesn’t tell you what the meanings of the terms in the “allegory” are, then any reader is free to speculate. And therein lies the problem. Unless the text says it’s allegory, don’t bet on it. That does not mean it isn’t symbolic. There is a difference.
OK I will take it as being symbolic then and I am happy with that.
Skip, This is very insightful and explains a lot for me. Tremendous food for thought. Thanks so much for challenging believers to think and consider that some of our most cherished beliefs and ideas about God and scripture are our own creation. The temptation for believers is to think that we understand it all perfectly. We most assuredly do not. It is very prideful of us to assume that we do. God bless and keep on keeping on.
Oh the precious or pernicious outcomes of choice.
America faces a big one tomorrow . . .
Hello Skip and Others,
“becomes good or eveil for us,” ties in with a Google experience I had on Shabbat about two weeks ago when reading that the word “evil” in English translations of the Bible is not directly linked to one Hebrew word for evil.
The questions then, if we pray, Deliver us from evil, or, Deliver us from the evil inclination, are we essentially asking to not be entrapped in a choice that demotes or outrightly rejects God’s plan and purpose in creation?
Thus, the result of the action is the visible evil or perhaps the visible good or filled full with God’s purpose.
Genocide would be an obvious evil, non-biodegradable products also may be an evil on result. Likewise, Many argue sin fully matures when committed. Is this what is being said?
Sincerely,
David Russell
The Matthew passage can be read, Deliver us from the evil one. Perhaps it suggests that we wish to be rescued from the powerful temptations of the yetzer ha’ra that would lead us on the inevitable path to perform some act in opposition to the purposes of God. I think it is more like Luzzatto’s concept of watchfulness, the desire to catch our direction earlier enough so that it can be steered away from disaster.
In Philippians 2:6 we find a comment by Paul that Jesus regarded equality with God NOT something to be grasped…. unlike Adam who made his own way/purpose/independent decisions. The Second Adam demonstrated throughout his life what the First Adam forfeited… complete obedience to the Father. He was thus “made perfect”.
So was the serpent necessary? If so, who sent the serpent to “test” the first humans? Is the serpent our flesh acting in opposition/self-will to God (i.e. ha satan)?
Again dear brother thank you for your gift to illuminate the truth. I have for many years been suggesting we must go back to the garden. For there were planted the two trees of knowledge. We each need to honestly and clearly determine how we choose to come to know something. I call one the tree of independent human knowing. Oswald chambers considered it’s fruit” my right to myself “, another teacher suggested it’s fruit was judgment. No matter how we define or describe it we are warned clearly eating from that tree of knowledge brings spirtual and eventually natural death. The other tree is named the tree of life. I call that tree the word of God, Messiah -The Christ.