The Tree of Life

[Benjamin]

What does it symbolize? And is it still there being guarded?

 

[kyredneck]

A.W. Pink on the Tree of Life

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants_02.htm [Part 2, chap V.]

.......Thus as the rainbow was the confirmatory sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Noah, as circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Abraham, so the tree of life was the sign and seal of the covenant promises He had made to Adam. It was appointed by God as the pledge of His faithfulness, and as an earnest of the blessings which continued fidelity would secure. Let it be expressly pointed out that, in keeping with the distinctive character of this present antitypical dispensation—when the substance has replaced the shadows—though baptism and the Lord’s Supper are divinely appointed ordinances, yet they are not seals unto the Christian. The seal of “the new covenant” is the Holy Spirit Himself (see 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30)! The gift of the blessed Spirit is the earnest or guaranty of our future inheritance.

The references to the “tree of life” in the New Testament confirm what has been said in the above paragraphs. In Revelation 2:7 we hear the Lord Jesus saying, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Those words express a promise of eternal life—the perfection and consum*mation of holiness and happiness—couched in such terms as obviously allude to Genesis 2:9. This is the first of seven promises made by Christ to the overcomer of Revelation 2 and 3, showing that this immutable gift (eternal life) is the foundation of all the other inesti*mable blessings which Christ’s victory has secured as the inheritance of those who by His grace are faithful unto death. Each victorious saint shall eat of “the tree of life”; that is, be unchangeably established in a state of eternal felicity and bliss. .....................

.......In its deeper significance, the tree of life was an emblem and type of Christ. “The tree of life signified the Son of God, not indeed as He is Christ and Mediator (that consideration being peculiar to another covenant), but inasmuch as He is the life of man in every condition, and the fountain of all happiness. And how well was it spoken by one who said, that it became God from the first to represent, by an outward sign, that person whom He loves, and for whose glory He has made and does make all things; that man even then might acknowl*edge Him as such. Wherefore Christ is called ‘the Tree of Life’ (Rev. 22:2). What indeed He now is by His merit and efficacy, as Mediator, He would have always been as the Son of God; for, as by Him man was created and obtained an animal life, so, in like manner, he would have been transformed by Him and blessed with a heavenly life. Nor could He have been the life of the sinner, as Mediator, unless He had likewise been the life of man in his holy state, as God; having life in Himself, and being life itself” (H. Witsius).

Here, then, we believe was the first symbolical foreshadowment of Christ, set before the eyes of Adam and Eve in their sinless state; and a most suitable and significant emblem of Him was it. Let us consider these prefigurements.

1. Its very name obviously pointed to the Lord Jesus, of whom we read, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). Those words are to be taken in their widest latitude. All life is resident in Christ—natural life, spiritual life, resurrection life, eternal life. “For to me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21) declares the saint: he lives in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), he lives on Christ (John 6:50-57), he shall for all eternity live with Christ (1 Thess. 4:17).

2. The position it occupied: “in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 2:9). Note how this detail is emphasized in Revelation 2:7, “in the midst of the paradise of God,” and “in the midst of the street” (Rev. 22:2), and compare “in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb” (Rev. 5:6). Christ is the center of heaven’s glory and blessedness.

3. In its sacramental significance: In Eden the symbolic tree of life stood as the seal of the covenant, as the pledge of God’s faithfulness, as the ratification of His promises to Adam. So of the antitype we read, “For all the promises of God in him [Christ] are yea, and in him [Christ] Amen, unto the glory of God by us” (2 Cor. 1:20). Yes, it is in Christ that all the promises of the everlasting covenant are sealed and secured.

4. Its attractiveness: “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9). Superlatively is that true of the Savior: to the redeemed He is “fairer than the children of men” (Ps. 45:2), yea, “altogether lovely” (Song of Sol. 5:16). And when the believer is favored with a season of intimate communion with Him, what cause he has to say, “His fruit was sweet to my taste” (Song of Sol. 2:3).

5. From the symbolical tree of life the apostate rebel was excluded (Gen. 3:24); likewise from the antitypical tree of life shall every finally impenitent sinner be separated: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power” (2 Thess. 1:9).

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14). Here is the final mention of the tree of life in Scripture—in marked and blessed contrast from what is recorded in Genesis 3:22-24. There we behold the disobedient rebel, under the curse of God, divinely excluded from the tree of life; for under the old covenant no provision was made for man’s restoration. But here we see a company under the new covenant, pronounced “blessed” by God, having been given the spirit of obedience, that they might have the right to enjoy the tree of life for all eternity. That “right” is threefold: the right which divine promise has given them (Heb. 5:9), the right of personal meetness (Heb. 12:14), and the right of evidential credentials (Jam. 2:21-25). None but those who, having been made new creatures in Christ, do His commandments, will enter the heavenly Jerusalem and be eternally regaled by the tree of life.

 

[Winman]

4. Its attractiveness: “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9). Superlatively is that true of the Savior: to the redeemed He is “fairer than the children of men” (Ps. 45:2), yea, “altogether lovely” (Song of Sol. 5:16). And when the believer is favored with a season of intimate communion with Him, what cause he has to say, “His fruit was sweet to my taste” (Song of Sol. 2:3).

This was not spoken about the tree of life, it was said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, an entirely different tree.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Both trees were in the midst of the garden, but they were two seperate trees. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil they were forbidden to eat of. They were not forbidden to eat of the tree of life.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Eve did not hear this command from God, she was not formed from Adam's rib until after God spoke these words to Adam. This may explain why she quoted God wrong in Genesis chapter 3. She probably learned from Adam, not God.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that is described as good for food, and pleasant to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, not the tree of life.

And after eating they did know both good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

And this verse also shows that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil were two seperate and individual trees.

People believe men physically die because of sin. That is not entirely true. Men spirtually die because of sin, but if Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree of life they would have physically lived forever in a sinful state.

 

[kyredneck]

This was not spoken about the tree of life, it was said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, an entirely different tree....

Go back and read it again Winman:

And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9

It applied to both trees.

 

[Johnv]

The Tree of Life still exists. I saw it on my last trip to Orlando. Here it is:

 

[Winman]

Go back and read it again Winman:

And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9

It applied to both trees.

You may be correct, although the the word "also" seems to give the tree of life it's own individuality from those trees first mentioned. But I will grant that it is very likely that this description did apply to the tree of life.

 

[kyredneck]

A.W. Pink on the Two Trees

"The tree of knowledge of good and evil."
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree";

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis_03.htm

In studying the typical teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures we learn from them sometimes by way of contrast and sometimes by way of comparison. A striking illustration of this double fact is found in the second chapter of Genesis. In the ninth verse we read of "The tree of knowledge of good and evil." In Acts 5:30 we read, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"; and again in 1 Peter 2:24, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." Now the thoughtful reader will naturally inquire, Why should the Cross of our blessed Lord be spoken of as a "tree"? Surely there must be some deeper meaning than that which appears on the surface. Was it not intended by the Holy Spirit that we should refer back to Genesis 2:9 and compare and contrast these two trees? We believe so, and a quiet meditation thereon reveals some remarkable points both of comparison and contrast between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree on which our Lord was crucified. Let us consider some of the points of contrast first.

1. The first tree was planted by God. "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9) This tree then was planted not by Adam, but by Adam’s Maker— God. But the second tree, the tree to which our Lord was nailed, was planted by man. "And they crucified Him" (Matthew 27:35) is the brief but terrible record. It was human hands which devised, provided and erected that cruel tree on the hill of Calvary. In marked contrast from the first tree, it was the hands of the creature and not the Creator which planted the second tree.

2. The first tree was pleasant to the eyes. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6). Exactly in what this "pleasantness" consisted we do not know, but the Divine record seems to indicate that this tree was an object of beauty and delight. What a contrast from the second Tree! Here everything was hideous and repellant. The suffering Savior, the vulgar crowd, the taunting priests, the two thieves, the flowing blood, the three hours darkness—nothing was there to please the outward eye. The first tree was "pleasant to the eyes," but concerning the One on the second tree it is written, "They saw in Him no beauty that they should desire Him."

3. God forbade man to eat of the first tree. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" (Gen. 2:17). A divine prohibition was placed upon the fruit of this tree. But again, how different from the second tree! How startling the contrast! There is no restriction here. In this case man is freely invited to draw near and eat of the fruit of this tree. The sinner is hidden to "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "All things are ready, Come." The position is exactly reversed. Just as man was commanded not to eat of the fruit of the first tree, he is now commanded to eat of the second.

4. Because God forbade man to eat of the first tree, Satan used every artifice to get man to eat of it. Contrariwise, because God now invites men to eat of the second tree, Satan uses all his powers to prevent men eating of it. Is not this another designed contrast marked out for us by the Holy Spirit? Humanly speaking it was solely due to the cunning and malice of the great enemy of God and man that our first parents ate of the forbidden fruit, and can we not also say, that it is now primarily due to the subtle devices of the old serpent the Devil that sinners are kept from eating the fruit of that second tree?

5. The eating of the first tree brought sin and death "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17). It was through eating of the fruit of this tree that the Curse descended upon our race with all its attendant miseries. By eating of the second Tree comes life and salvation. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life" (John 6:53, 54). Is there not in these words of our Lord a latent reference to the history of man’s fall, and a designed contrast from the first tree? Just as by the act of "eating" man lost his spiritual life, so by an act of "eating" man now obtains spiritual and eternal life!

6. Adam, the thief, through eating of the first tree, was turned out of Paradise, while the repentant thief, through eating of the second Tree, entered Paradise. We doubt not that once again there is a designed antithesis in these two things. A thief is connected with both trees, for in eating of the forbidden fruit our first parents committed an act of theft. Is it not then something more than a coincidence that we find a "thief" (yea, two thieves) connected with the second Tree also? And when we note the widely different experiences of the two thieves the point is even more striking. As we have said one was cast out of Paradise (the garden), the other was admitted into Paradise, and to say the least, it is remarkable that our Lord should employ the word "Paradise" in this connection—the only time He ever did use it!

 

[kyredneck]

A.W. Pink on the Two Trees cont.

Two Trees continued:

Now, briefly, let us consider some of the points of resemblance:

1. Both trees were planted in a garden. The first in the Garden of Eden, the second in a garden which is unnamed. "Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden’’ (John 19:41). Are we not told this, for one reason, in order that we should connect the two trees? Is it not a striking point of analogy, that both the first Adam and the last Adam died in a "garden"!

2. In connection with both trees we find the words "in the midst." "The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9). The word "and" connecting the two trees together and intimating their juxtaposition in the midst of the garden. In like manner we also read concerning our Savior, "They crucified Him, and two others with Him on either side one, and Jesus in the midst?"

3. Both are trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Where in all the world, or in all the Scriptures, do we learn the knowledge of good and evil as we do at the second Tree—the Cross? There we see Goodness incarnate. There we behold the Holiness of God displayed as nowhere else. There we discover the unfathomable love and matchless grace of Deity unveiled as never before or since. But there, too, we also see Evil see it in all its native hideousness. There we witness the consummation and climax of the creature’s wickedness. There we behold as nowhere else the vileness, the heinousness, the awfulness of sin as it appears in the sight of the thrice holy God. Yes, there is a designed resemblance as well as a contrast between the two trees. The Cross also is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

4. Finally, there is another tree beside the one that was planted in Eden, of which Genesis 3:6 is true, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat." Ah! that second Tree is surely "good for food," too. The Cross of Christ and all that it stands for, is the very meat and marrow of the believer’s life. It is "good" as "food" for the soul! And how "pleasant" it is "to the eyes" of faith! There we see all our sins blotted out. There we see our old man crucified. There we see the ground upon which a holy God can meet a guilty sinner. There we see the Finished Work of our adorable Redeemer. Truly, it is "pleasant to the eyes." And is not this second Tree also "a tree to be desired to make one wise"? Yes; the preaching of the Cross is not only the power of God, but "the wisdom of God" as well. The knowledge of this second Tree makes the sinner "wise" unto salvation.

In closing this little meditation we would call attention to one or two other scriptures in which a "tree" figures prominently. First, from Genesis 3:17 we learn that the "tree" is linked directly with the Curse: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat’ of it all the days of thy life." In the light of this how significant are the following passages: In Genesis 40 we have recorded the dreams of the two men who were in prison with Joseph. When interpreting the baker’s dream, Joseph said, "Within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shalt hang thee on a tree" (Gen. 40:19). Again, in Joshua 8:29 we are told, "And the king of Ai was hanged on a tree until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcass down from the tree." Once more, in Esther 2:23 we read, "And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king." What striking illustrations are these of what we find in Galatians 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"!

"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray thee, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree" (Gen. 18:1-4). How suggestive are the last words of this quotation. Why should we be told that Abraham invited his three visitors to rest "under the tree," unless there is some typical meaning to his words? The "tree," as we have seen, speaks of the Cross of Christ, and it is there that "rest" is to be found. An additional point is brought out in the eighth verse of Genesis 18: "And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." Eating is the symbol of communion, and it was under the tree these three men ate: so, it is the Cross of Christ which is the basis and ground of our fellowship with God. How striking, too, the order here: first, rest under the "tree," and then eating, or fellowship!

Finally, how meaningful is Exodus 15:23-25. When Israel, at the commencement of their wilderness journey reached Marah, "they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter." And Moses "cried unto the Lord, and the Lord showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet." Comment is almost needless, the type is so apparent. Here again, the "tree" typifies the Cross of Christ and the Christ of the Cross. It was our blessed Lord Who, by going down into the place of death, sweetened the bitter waters for us. Furthermore, it is only as the believer applies, practically, the principle of the Cross to his daily life, that the Marahs of our wilderness experiences are transmuted into "waters that are made sweet." To enter into "the fellowship of His sufferings," and to be "made conformable unto His death," is the highest Christian privilege.

How remarkable is the order, the progressive order, of these passages! First, the "tree" is seen as the place of the curse. Second, the "tree" is seen as the place where rest is found. Third, the "tree" is seen as the ground of communion. Fourth, the "tree" is seen as the principle of action to the daily life of the believer.

 

[Benjamin]

The Tree of Life still exists. I saw it on my last trip to Orlando. Here it is:

Actually, some see it very literally and consider it a physical tree, but that it has died, drowned or something. Sooo, I'm afraid they would disagree with you about seeing it. Sorry...

 

[Benjamin]

Sounds symbolically like the same tree?

Revelation 2:7
(7) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

 

[Marcia]

The Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil are two separate trees. This is the first time I ever heard someone say they were the same tree and I don't believe the text supports that.

Note from the NET Bible:

In light of Gen 3:22, the construction “tree of life” should be interpreted to mean a tree that produces life-giving fruit (objective genitive) rather than a living tree (attributive genitive). See E. O. James, The Tree of Life (SHR); and R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 117-20.

This is their note on the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature – people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6, as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies (3:5) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one – respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit (3:22), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic (3:24). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil (3:22), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.

Notice that it is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," not "tree of knowledge of good and evil."

 

[kyredneck]

..... This is the first time I ever heard someone say they were the same tree and I don't believe the text supports that.

I guess I've missed something; has someone insinuated that the two trees are the same?

 

[Marcia]

I guess I've missed something; has someone insinuated that the two trees are the same?

I misunderstood/misread a previous post talking about the "same tree" but I think it meant the tree of life in the Garden and in Revelation - can't recall now; there's too much on page one for me to look it over right now. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[kyredneck]

I misunderstood/misread a previous post talking about the "same tree" but I think it meant the tree of life in the Garden and in Revelation - can't recall now; there's too much on page one for me to look it over right now. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Apologies are probably in order from me here. I posted a SECOND analagy by Pink about the Tree of Knowldege of Good and evil which was off topic, and possibly has generated some confusion.