What did the tree of life confer? There are three basic interpretations. Let’s run through them by process of elimination
1. Glorification
According to the eschatological interpretation (favored by redemptive-historical theologians like Vos, Kline, Alexander), partaking the tree of life glorifies the consumer. They justify this interpretation by appealing to Revelation, with its eschatological references to the tree of life.
However, a basic problem with their interpretation is that it’s clearly premature, anachronistic. For it confuses the type with the antitype.
Yes, the tree of life in the Garden prefigures the tree of life in the New Jerusalem. But it’s a basic principle of biblical typology that the antitype is something over and above the type, and not merely a recapitulation of the type.
2. Life-extension
According to this interpretation (favored by John Walton), the tree of life prevents aging as long as you partake. But you have to keep eating the fruit to stay young. It’s a maintenance regime.
However, there are some basic problems with that interpretation:
i) It makes tree itself is the source of what it signifies. That’s a chemical property of the tree. A natural supplement. Keep going back to replenish a natural deficiency. Immorality as pharmacopia.
But the pattern in Scripture is not to treat physical objects as the immediate source or cause of such effects. Rather, God assigns a particular blessing to some concrete token. Take the Pentateuchal example of the bronze serpent. It has no inherent healing properties. It was just a piece of metal. Its curative significance was purely emblematic. The snakebite victims were healed by God, not the bronze serpent. The serpent was just a sympathetic token.
ii) It’s hard to see how Walton’s interpretation comes to terms with the nature of the death penalty in Gen 3:22.
a) The wording of Gen 3:22 indicates partaking the tree would transform Adam and Eve, thereby changing the status quo ante. If, however, they already partook, then eating again couldn’t very well effect a new condition. Rather, it would confirm their condition. Make them immortal sinners.
b) The adverb (“also”, Heb.=gam) is another textual clue of a novel, additional transaction. Something they hadn’t done before.
c) Before they fell, there was no urgency about partaking the tree of life. Even after the fall, Adam aged very slowly.
But when they fell, when they faced the forbidding prospect of divine exile from the safety of their gated garden, then the neglected value of the tree would suddenly assume a new urgency.
3. Immortality
On this interpretation (favored by scholars like Barr, Currid, Hamilton, and Waltke), one bite conferred immortality. Youthful, ageless immortality. So they died because they were banished from the garden, and thereby blew that unique, irreversible, and unrepeatable opportunity.
Steve, thank you, good article. I see the exegetical indicator you point to, of 'also' in Gen. 3:22, as an interpretation that from that word they had not yet eaten of the tree of life. But could there be an argument here that 'also' in 3:22 could not just mean, 'also (not yet), but 'also' (again)? As if the triune God were saying, 'lest he stretch out his hand and also again take from the tree of life...? (The word 'also' in 3:22 not necessarily an indication that he hadn't done so already)?
ReplyDeleteThe adverb also occurs nearby in 3:6, where it indicates a novel action.
ReplyDeleteHow about just giving an answer to the question now that you have laid out the three basic interpretations?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you definitively answer to the question then, "what did the tree of life confer?"
And just a comment about the bronze serpent.
It came about because of the belief, the faith he exercised. I suppose God could have said make me a turtle on a stick and whenever you are bitten by a snake, touch the back of the turtle and you shall be healed.
Making it and doing what God said, both take Faith, a Faith none of them had naturally.
For me and anyone for that matter to read this article or any article in here comes after receiving Faith. Now, ironically, just receiving the Faith does not get us any further or closer to God.
Anyway, I enjoy coming in here and reading what you men put up for our pleasure, reading what you put up in here for us to read and ponder and when warranted, making a comment or two too!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, a bit of agreement with Natamlic here about not really answering the question, my friend. I'm not your adversary, I enjoy immensely your posts and this blog,and your stance on 6-day + 1 day rest creation, but I'm a bit puzzled if as you say that Adam was created mortal, does this mean the animals were created mortal as well and needed to eat from the tree of life to keep living? How was that possible? Or is it your opinion that the animate sub-human created order was never intended to live forever? Raises some interesting questions about whether there was death in the animal kingdom before Adam sinned, doesn't it?
NATAMLLC SAID:
ReplyDelete"What would you definitively answer to the question then, 'what did the tree of life confer?'"
Option #3.
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI learn something everyday reading your articles and answers!
Steve Drake said...
ReplyDelete“…but I'm a bit puzzled if as you say that Adam was created mortal, does this mean the animals were created mortal as well and needed to eat from the tree of life to keep living? How was that possible? Or is it your opinion that the animate sub-human created order was never intended to live forever?”
Individual animals were never intended to live forever. Various kinds of animals survive (through reproduction) from one generation to the next, but not individuals.
“Raises some interesting questions about whether there was death in the animal kingdom before Adam sinned, doesn't it?”
I think that’s answered here:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/animal_death_before_fall.html
Thanks Steve,
ReplyDeleteI see that you are not a proponent of 'no death' in the entire created order until Adam sinned. That's not my view, or the view of the Creation ministries like AIG, ICR, and CMI that you site on your blog. I'm not sure you site each of these three, but I think I've seen CMI sited there. However, I see your point about the word 'also' in Gen. 3:6 and 3:22 as being a novel action. I think that could very well be a strong argument that Adam and Eve had not eaten of the Tree of Life yet. But, I think that since God ordains the means as well as the ends, the end for Adam and Eve was immortality and part of the means was the tree of life, a sacramental function here, much like we see in the sacrament of communion today. I think it is very difficult exegetically to explain away the use of 'good' 6 times in Gen. 1 and 'very good' in Gen. 1:31, along with God's giving of plants and fruit as food to both Adam and Eve and the animals in Gen. 1:29-30, and taking the position that death reigned in the animal kingdom, or that individual animals were never intended to live forever, before Adam's sin, which resulted in the Curse of death for the whole created order.
Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:21 that speak to man bringing 'death', 1 Cor. 15:26 that death is an 'enemy' also lend weight I think.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the paper by Lee Irons that you site the URL, but I will. I'd like to comment on it once I've read it.
Blessings.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteOkay, having read Irons paper, I find it interesting that in the first paragraph he states that he 'finds the empirical evidence for an old earth and universe to be compelling, if not incontrovertible'.
With that as his starting point, no wonder he makes claims (with his unique interpretation of those particular Scripture passages, following Kline) to say that there was no animal death before Adam sinned.
He makes no reference to the use of 'good' six times in Gen. 1, or 'very good' in Gen. 1:31 and what this says about God's character, or to Noah's Flood in Gen. 6-9, and whether this might have implications on his old earth geology and subsequent theology.
In other words, his old earth geology is driving his theology. By accepting an old earth, he then finds support (albeit, a unique interpretation, following Kliine) that animals must have been eating and killing each other for food and territorial defense, in some instances for sport, before Adam sinned, thus negating the sin-death causality of the Curse.
By being wedded to an old earth geology, one's theology about the tree of life and what it confers is then suspect.
In accepting secular science's interpretation of the geological data, one could then argue that the tree of life was a missed opportunity for Adam and Eve and had nothing to do with Adam having dominion over the animals, and that God's 'very good' creation included death in the animal kingdom already.
There is no animosity here brother, and maybe this is not the thread to debate a billions of years old earth versus a 6000 year old earth, but I can see that your old earth assumption is driving your tree of life theology and what it confers or doesn't confer.
Am willing to continue the dialog, perhaps under a new post and heading, if you wish, but am forever thankful for your posts and for Triablogue.
Blessings.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteSince you posted a URL from Lee Irons at Upper Register, I would like to draw your attention to one from Henry B. Smith, Jr. on the theological implications of the Fall seen in Romans 8 and it's direct connection to the universal death sentence caused by Adam's infraction seen in Gen. 3:14-19 that you may find interesting.
http://creation.com/cosmic-and-universal-death-from-adams-fall-an-exegesis-of-romans-819-23a
Blessings
STEVE DRAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“I see that you are not a proponent of 'no death' in the entire created order until Adam sinned.”
True.
“That's not my view, or the view of the Creation ministries like AIG, ICR, and CMI that you site on your blog. I'm not sure you site each of these three, but I think I've seen CMI sited there.”
i) YEC is a package, of which some elements are better grounded than others.
ii) The best YEC writers are generally scientists by training rather than Bible scholars. As such, they sometimes make exegetical judgments that I don’t make. I don’t look to them for exegesis.
“I think it is very difficult exegetically to explain away the use of 'good' 6 times in Gen. 1 and 'very good' in Gen. 1:31, along with God's giving of plants and fruit as food to both Adam and Eve and the animals in Gen. 1:29-30, and taking the position that death reigned in the animal kingdom, or that individual animals were never intended to live forever, before Adam's sin, which resulted in the Curse of death for the whole created order.”
i) Well, that depends on what the divine benediction means. To say animal death is “bad” is not something you can infer from the word “good.” Rather, you seem to be bringing a preconception of goodness to the occurrence of the Hebrew word. But, of course, whether or not animal death is bad is the very question at issue.
That depends, among other things, on the intended purpose of animals, and what distinguishes animals from humans.
ii) In Gen 1, I take “good” to be God’s self-performance evaluation. God approves of his own handiwork.
There’s a command/fulfillment pattern in Gen 1: God commands something to be, and what he commands to be comes to be.
I take the benediction to be the acknowledgement that his successful intentions. Everything he intended to achieve he succeeded in realizing. A perfect match between divine conception and divine effection.
“In other words, his old earth geology is driving his theology.”
That may well be true, but his exegesis must be evaluated on the merits.
“…but I can see that your old earth assumption is driving your tree of life theology and what it confers or doesn't confer.”
No, that’s not something you can see, because it isn’t there. My position on the tree of life is not contingent on the debate over chronology.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
You said,
'The best YEC writers are generally scientists by training rather than Bible scholars...'
Conjecture. Many excellent pastors and OT and NT scholars are YEC in their positions.
You say,
'Well, that depends on what the divine benediction means. To say animal death is “bad” is not something you can infer from the word “good.” Rather, you seem to be bringing a preconception of goodness to the occurrence of the Hebrew word. But, of course, whether or not animal death is bad is the very question at issue.'
We need to address the issue of God's character here brother, when we say that animal death before Adam sinned is 'good'. You seem to be arguing that animals red in tooth and claw, carnivory, disease, the strong preying on the weak, is 'good', or divine benediction on God's part. I argue that this goes right to the heart of God's character, and if this was his plan from the beginning, then the skeptic (as many have rightly done) can ask what kind of God is this? How is God 'good' when death has reigned for billions of years (which you have already acquiesced to in a belief in an old earth) in the animal kingdom, His Creation, and how is this all 'very good' Gen. 1:31? The burden is on you to prove that animal death, disease, and suffering are all part of God's original Creation and reflect His Holy character.
You say,
'In Gen 1, I take “good” to be God’s self-performance evaluation. God approves of his own handiwork.'
And that handiwork includes cancer?
You say,
'No, that’s not something you can see, because it isn’t there. My position on the tree of life is not contingent on the debate over chronology.' (referring to my claim that your old earth assumption is driving your tree of life theology and what it confers or doesn't confer).
Sure it is. I can conclude from your writings and opinions, (and that's all it is brother, my conclusion), your naysaying to the contrary, that your acceptance of secular science's interpretations of the geologic data and their conclusion of a billions of year old earth, is clouding your opinion of what the tree of life confers. I'm sorry you don't see that, and you can disagree, of course, but I do 'see' it (taking into consideration all the nuances and definitions of the word 'see').
Again, I'm not trying to be a rabblerouser here Steve, but I think too highly of you to not challenge you a bit on your uncritical acceptance of an old earth geology.
STEVE DRAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Conjecture. Many excellent pastors and OT and NT scholars are YEC in their positions.”
Are you going out of your way to avoid the point? Most pastors aren’t writers. Most NT scholars never write about YEC, and even OT scholars don’t normally write about YEC unless they’re doing a commentary on Genesis, where that issue naturally arises.
I’m alluding to YEC writers like John Byl, Marcus Ross, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, and Kurt Wise.
“We need to address the issue of God's character here brother, when we say that animal death before Adam sinned is 'good'.”
No, we need to exegete the rhetorical function of the benediction in Gen 1.
“You seem to be arguing that animals red in tooth and claw, carnivory, disease, the strong preying on the weak, is 'good', or divine benediction on God's part.”
That’s not an exegetical issue. The text says nothing about that one way or the other. Rather, that’s something you picked up outside the Bible, which you’re now interpolating into the discussion.
“I argue that this goes right to the heart of God's character, and if this was his plan from the beginning, then the skeptic (as many have rightly done) can ask what kind of God is this?”
i) Since I’m a Calvinist, I naturally think this was God’s plan for the outset. I don’t think God is improvising.
ii) Moreover, you haven’t argued for your position. All you’ve done is to stipulate that this is out of character for God.
“How is God 'good' when death has reigned for billions of years (which you have already acquiesced to in a belief in an old earth) in the animal kingdom, His Creation, and how is this all 'very good' Gen. 1:31?”
i) I haven’t acquiesced to OEC. You keep confusing logically distinct issues.
ii) How long animal death reigned is irrelevant to God’s character. If predation, parasitism, &c. for billions of years is incompatible with God’s character, then the same phenomena for thousands or merely hundreds of years is equally incompatible with God’s character. Likewise, if postlapsarian predation, parasitism, &c. is incompatible with God’s character, then so is prelapsarian predation, parasitism, &c.
Since animals aren’t culpable for the fall, you can’t cite the fall to justify animal “suffering.”
iii) And, again, you haven’t begun to show how these phenomena run counter to the benediction on exegetical grounds. You haven’t shown how the narrator defines “good” such that animal predation, &c. are bad.
Cont. “The burden is on you to prove that animal death, disease, and suffering are all part of God's original Creation and reflect His Holy character.”
ReplyDeletei) There’s no burden on me to refute your nonexistent argument.
ii) You appeal to the same anthropomorphic projections that I encounter among village atheists like John Loftus and Andrea Weisberger. Indeed, I already covered that well-trodden ground in my review of his chapter on the “Darwinian problem of evil” in TCD.
iii) The examples you cite are functional phenomena which maintain a natural balance. And they exemplify the principle of plenitude.
iv) As a Calvinist I accept the fact that since everything ultimately comes from God, everything is ultimately about God. Everything in creation and providence alike display the manifold wisdom and goodness of God, although not everything is good in and of itself.
“And that handiwork includes cancer?”
i) In humans or animals? Cancer in humans is a lapsarian liability. I have no reason to think animals necessarily enjoyed the same immunity prior to the fall.
ii) God has a plan for the world, and God approves of his plan.
“Sure it is. I can conclude from your writings and opinions, (and that's all it is brother, my conclusion), your naysaying to the contrary, that your acceptance of secular science's interpretations of the geologic data and their conclusion of a billions of year old earth, is clouding your opinion of what the tree of life confers. I'm sorry you don't see that, and you can disagree, of course, but I do 'see' it (taking into consideration all the nuances and definitions of the word 'see').”
If you ever spent much time in the archives, what you’d see is how often I’ve shown how YEC chronology is consistent with the scientific evidence. Your confidence is inversely proportional to your knowledge.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou say,
'I haven’t acquiesced to OEC. You keep confusing logically distinct issues.'
You cited Iron's paper as an answer to animal death before the Fall. Irons states in his paper that he believes the empirical evidence for an old earth is incontrovertible. Since you cite is paper, I assume you agree with his position that the earth is billions of years old. So I'm asking you plainly, do you agree with his position that the earth is billions of years old?
That's a fallacious inference. Has it never occurred to you that we can find selective value in what a scholar says?
ReplyDeleteBrother Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt's a simple question. Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.
Blessings brother.
Commenters don't get to derail the topic of a post to ride their irrelevant hobbyhorse. I do a post to make the point I wish to make, not the point you wish to make.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to take your conspiratorial suspicions elsewhere.
Brother Steve,
ReplyDelete'You're welcome to take your conspiratorial suspicions elsewhere.'
And with that show of disdain, and brotherly love, the matter is settled.
May your borders continue to be enlarged, brother, and may you continue to be blessed by our gracious Lord and Savior.
You blow off what I say about my position, as if you know more about it than I do; you also ignore my paper trail on the subject, and then pretend to take the moral high ground. No, that doesn't cut it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, if the animal sacrificial system which God instituted was consistent with his character, then nature red in tooth and claw is also consistent with his character. It's not as if the animal sacrificial system was the ancient equivalent of PETA.
ReplyDelete