After decades of hearing Herbert Armstrong harp on the "two trees," the Living Chruch of God continues to carry on that tradition. With its focus entirely upon blessings and cursing of the old covenant, it cannot comprehend why a new covenant follower of Christ does not need to worry about the two trees or any of the myths that Armstrongism has tied into its worship of the law over Jesus and the new covenant, a covenant that is better.
The Lesson of Two Trees: The book of Genesis contains what many believe is a quaint little tale about two trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from. Yet they made a fateful choice to ignore God’s instructions, and they reaped the consequences (see Genesis 2:15–17; 3:1–23). However, this is more than a quaint little story. The two trees picture two ways of life—of obeying God’s laws or turning away and rejecting His instructions. This important theme runs through the Scriptures. The covenant God made with Israel promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). David repeated this same message about blessings for the righteous and curses for the ungodly (Psalm 1). Jesus also focused on the need to choose between two different ways of life: a narrow way that leads to life and a broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13–14). We need to learn a vital lesson from these two trees so we can make wise decisions.
Have a profitable Sabbath, Douglas S. Winnail
Winnail and LCG prefer to remain in slavery to the bondwoman instead of being free with the free woman:
Galatians 4:30-31 NIV
30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[a] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Why do they insist on being in bondage to the old covenant? All it does is bring constant condemnation because no one in the COG has ever been able to keep the entire law. In fact, the law was instituted so that sin might increase (Roman 5:20).
Paul compares being under the Law to being born of Hagar, the bondwoman. “She is in slavery with her children.” But those who are children of promise are free. He concludes, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 4:25; 5:1).
The law was never able to forgive sins, but the new covenant does. This seems to irritate the hell out of COG leaders.
Actually, in the tale, the Two Trees are God-fruit trees. The Knowledge of good and evil as well as eternal life is only for the gods. Humans in the original Sumerian rendition of the story were just worker bees who were to take care of the gods. Of course, plunking it down in the middle of the Garden is a bit unfair. They should have been placed behind a secure fence or protected byangelic guards to prevent this debacle. I would hold the Deity accountable for the careless placement of the trees "in the midst of the garden". I think it was a set up :)
ReplyDeleteGod panicked when they took of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”!!!! Now they were sorta like "US", which would be El the Supreme God, originally of the Canaanites and borrowed by the Hebrews and his Council of the Gods. The "US" was not God and Jesus to be.
Anyway, just the phrase "There were two trees in the Garden...." puts me in a HWA induced coma! lol
One question would be, why were Adam and Eve to blame for anything? When given the original instructions about not partaking, they didn't have the knowledge of good or evil to understand that no meant no. So why blame them for something they did not yet understand.
The COG view of the Two Trees is baloney.
In speaking of the Law, Paul refers to it as the Law of sin and death.
ReplyDeleteDoug Winnail refers to Law keeping as the Tree of Life and breaking the Law as the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.
Can’t they see that the Law is not about Life? The Law was given because of sin, because mankind is dealing in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Jesus as the Second Adam allows us to take of the Tree of Life. Before that time mankind has been bumping around in the wrong tree.
The COGs have never understood the two trees.
Eve didn't know what she was saying in Gen 3:2-3? She did know.
ReplyDeleteLet's get something straight. It is actually a point of logic. The minute you become conscious of one thing, you also become conscious of its exact opposite. This is unavoidable. If you know what good is, you automatically know what its opposite is; bad, or evil. You don't need fruit from a tree to reach this level of consciousness. Another philosophy uses yin and yang as a guiding metaphor for this. Polarity, or opposites, are a constant part of the dynamic of the universe
ReplyDeleteLCG regularly enjoys singing “Oh How Love I Thy Law” yet the would never sing a song about loving Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of contrasting in Scripture the 2 classification of "things" is known and used by most Christian denominations, not just Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteChrist used it (Matthew 7:13-14).
Paul used it (Romans 8:5-6, 1 Cor.2:12, Galatians 6:8).
John used it (1 John 4:4-6).
The fact that the COG's use it is no big deal other than the fact that this blog is in constant need of negative material! Seems to me like there's plenty of that around without this far reach.
Also, thank you Dennis for the official atheistic version and view on the subject. My opinion of it? It's baloney!
Dennis
ReplyDeleteIn the garden, Adam and Eve were given a certain amount of information. God showed the couple animals and vegetation that He had created. He also spent time with them so that they could gauge His character. So many will disagree with your claim that they weren't blame worthy.
Several themes are consistent through the whole of scripture. One is that there is a choice, life or death, with the admonition to choose life. The first record of testing man with this choice was the Two Trees.
ReplyDeleteAnother repeated theme is for man to repent and receive forgiveness.
It appears that COGs over stress to follow their version of the right path, presented as strict obedient to an esoteric, eclectic collection of doctrines. Protestant churches seem to over stress forgiveness, obscuring the "turning around" to repentance and obedience.
COGs present Jesus primarily as the Spokesman or "newscaster", but obscure His role as Redeemer, while with Protestants Jesus is Savior, but His roles as Teacher and King seem neglected.
Just my observation.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDennis
In the garden, Adam and Eve were given a certain amount of information. God showed the couple animals and vegetation that He had created. He also spent time with them so that they could gauge His character. So many will disagree with your claim that they weren't blame worthy.
=====================
It's just a story. It had meaning but not the ones Western Christianity has assigned to it. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literally true to begin with. We should know that by now 2500 years later.
The two trees are the symbolic center of the model God used in dealing with ancient Israel. The model goes like this: God shows you the way, he places you in a good land where you may be blessed and have life, you reject the way, you go into exile and are cut off from life. This is what happened to Adam and Eve, and it is what happened to Israel, and it is what happened to Judah. This is a Deuteronomic model. The Deuteronomic model is based on the principle that if you obey God, he will bless you and if you disobey God then he will curse you. (The Deuteronomic model receives attention through the Old Testament with the exception of the books of Job and Jonah. Job essentially presents a New Testament view in opposition to the Deuteronomic model.) HWA does not make the connection to the history of Israel and Judah but, otherwise, he presents the Deuteronomic model in his explanation of the two trees.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that this Millerite preacher fails to recognize the New Testament and grace. He cites a series of Deuteronomic examples, and he entrains along with these, without so much as slowing down for a speed bump, a parable from Jesus which was given in the context of the New Testament and grace. Grace essentially dismantles the Deuteronomic model. But this entrainment subtly subsumes Jesus and the New Testament message of grace into the Deuteronomic model. Grace is set aside, and it becomes all about law. Absent grace, HWA's message about the two trees is an Old Testament Law redux not a New Testament message of good news.
Cogitatio
Wow! Trooisto, that's so true.
ReplyDeleteTrooisto,
ReplyDelete"Oh how love I Jesus
He is ever with me.
His-new commands make me wiser
than the Pha-ar-i-see."
Occam: that re-write is hilarious!
DeleteBut, LCG would not find it funny or see it as an appropriate way to worship.
Loving Jesus is actually a New Covenant command but LCG demonstrates a strong preference for defunct Old Covenant law, while ridiculing those who express affection for Jesus.
Actually, they’re idolizing the law, accompanied with distaste for Jesus, is a violation of the law they claim to love.
I once asked an LCG member if he loved Jesus.
I was surprised that he eventually, but uncomfortably, said yes.
However, he first tried to nervously obfuscate by claiming that LCG is the only ones keeping God’s commandments so they’re the only ones truly loving God.
He was implying that their law keeping made LCG superior to those Christians, falsely so called who use sappy words to adore and appreciate Jesus.
The entire body of LCG’s work demonstrates great love of the law and little interest in Jesus.
LCG should at least attempt to make up for their history of neglecting Jesus by adopting your lyrics to their favorite hymn.
"Oh how sweet is your love
ReplyDeletemore than honey is sweet
from thy presence Eternal
Let me never depart."
The Genesis story arc leads to meaning but it passes through literature to achieve this. This does leave the door open for satire like what Dennis has given us. We should ask ourselves how some of the Jewish sages view this account. Herewith:
ReplyDeleteFrom Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, Introduction:
Now, on the one hand, the subject of the creation is very important, but on the other hand, our ability to understand these concepts is very limited. Therefore, God described these profound concepts, which His Divine wisdom found necessary to communicate to us, using allegories, metaphors, and imagery. The sages put it succinctly, "It is impossible to communicate to man the stupendous immensity of the creation of the universe. Therefore, the Torah simply says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'
And from the Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49a:
"Whoever translates a verse literally is a liar."
The latter statement is a little extreme. But one must consider that the Jews, "unto them were committed the oracles of God," have debated the Scripture for centuries and the evangelical literalists are relative greenhorns.
Cogitatio
“Oh How Love I Thy Law”
ReplyDeleteThe word Law should be Instruction or Teaching, which is a more correct translation from Hebrew.
The purple hymnal aka "song book" mostly used Psalms and some other scriptures. Were any of the Messianic Psalms (such as 2, 22, 109, 110, 118) used? I don't remember.
I remember Laugh In's "Here come da judge! He loves da Law!".
It was my observation while I attended services that those who had Christ like traits were persecuted by the church, and especially by the ministers. So the ACOGs keeping Christ at arms length is unsurprising.
ReplyDelete"The first eleven chapters of Genesis are not true to begin with. We should know that by now 2500 years later."
ReplyDeleteReaders please note that the "we" is Dennis and his dissident books.
Dennis wrote at 7:33, "The first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literally true to begin with. We should know that by now 2500 years later."
ReplyDeleteIf Adam and Eve didn't exist, then why would Adam be listed in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:38?
I believe Dennis is coming at this topic from an atheist point of view. He doesn't believe Jesus Christ existed any more than he believes Adam and Eve did. If this is an inaccurate statement, perhaps Dennis could explain his point of view more accurately.
ReplyDeleteBut the 12th chapter of Genesis is true? I don't get where Dennis comes up with "2500 years later". My best (studied) guess is Genesis 12 occurred about 1900 BC, so now is about 3920 years later.
ReplyDeleteUs little people try to persuade others using facts and a line reasoning. But not so for the big people ministers and ex-ministers like Dennis. Everything they say is like words from God's own mouth. If anyone disagrees with them, well that's mere human reasoning since revelation trumps reasoning.
ReplyDelete