Exegeting the Tree of Life: And a Perspective on HWA’s Two Trees Doctrine

 

Symbol of the Tree of Life (Fair Use)

 

Exegeting the Tree of Life

And a Perspective on HWA’s Two Trees Doctrine

By Scout

In 1513, Ponce de León bummed around what would become Florida looking for the legendary Fountain of Youth.  Indigenous people had told him about waters that reversed aging and restored health.  There is some question if he actually did search for the waters.  But, if he did, apparently he did not find them. He died in 1521. There is an account similar to the Fountain of Youth in the pages of the Bible.  It is the account of the Tree of Life. 

I have always been puzzled by the Tree of Life in Genesis.  When I read about it, I don’t know quite how to react.  Between the opposite poles of reality and metaphor, where does it fit?  So, here is my current view.  Done in the spirit of Midrash – the Jewish idea that the Bible is a problem to be solved.

The Problem of the Tree of Life

There are some properties of the Tree of Life that make it problematic. They are as follows:

1.     The Tree can directly impart eternal life to someone who consumes its fruit.  The idea of eternal life occurring at the beginning of the Biblical account is dramatic, considering that eternal life receives almost no attention in the OT.

2.     The imparting of eternal life through consumption does not involve God’s will.  If one can get to the tree by sneaking and eating its fruit, eternal life will be imparted.  

3.     Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden by the Elohim so they would not access the Tree of Life and thereby become eternal and be like the Elohim. This exclusion of Adam and Eve was so important that a Cherubim, a high-ranking angel, was placed as a guard to keep Adam and Eve away.   There was also a flaming sword that protected the Tree of Life from all directions.  This is extraordinary security. 

4.     The phrase “tree of life” occurs several times in Proverbs where it is not associated with imparting eternal life.  It seems to be, rather, a figure of speech.

5.     The Tree of Life reappears in Revelation.  In Revelation 22:14, it is associated with salvation and, therefore, eternal life.

The Tree of Life, from these characteristics, seems to be mythological, but more likely, allegorical.  The discussion here could be wide-ranging but I want to focus on just a few issues.  

The Concept of Eating

Eating to sustain life is a large theme in the Creation.  Amoebae encompass smaller protozoans and consume them. Humans must eat plants and animals.  We have mouths to process what we can find in the way of food in our environment.  If we do not consume other living things, we die. Angels apparently eat manna.  I don’t know why.  And I don’t know how manna is produced.  But for physical creatures, eating living things is essential and sometimes cruel and violent.  There is a dark brutality in this.  For tigers, we are just a food source.  A beloved person with intelligence, emotion, and talents can be killed and devoured by a tiger as if the person were a rabbit.  If one can furtively pluck a fruit off the Tree of Life, one can destructively masticate it, swallow it, and live forever. Next time you eat a burger, think about how odd the whole process of eating actually is.

The ultimate apotheosis of eating is the Eucharist.  We eat the symbolic body and blood of Jesus.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus characterizes himself as the consumable Bread of Life. And whosoever eats of his flesh and blood has salvation.  Though eating the flesh and blood of Jesus is a requirement for salvation, the Thief on the Cross seems to have had a special dispensation.  The humble, creaturely act of eating is important in the New Testament. It is on the critical path to salvation.  So, it is not surprising that eternal life imparted by the Tree of Life happens by way of the process of eating its fruit.

The Single Source Passage

We must consider how the Tree of Life account got into Genesis.  It seems mythological.  As one might expect, the Tree of Life occurs in other ancient Near Eastern Cultures. It occurs in Mesopotamia and Egypt, for instance.  According to Source Criticism, in Genesis, the scriptures pertaining to the Tree of Life come from a group called the Yahwists (J). These people were fond of vivid storytelling, using evocative language, focusing on the traditions and history of Judah, characterizing God as anthropomorphic, and describing God as interacting with humans. They are the earliest source for the Pentateuch.  The Hebrew language they used was pre-exilic, and they are dated to the Tenth Century BC.  In my view, they were folklorists, and this is compatible with the mood of the Genesis account of the Tree of Life.  

I do not mean to suggest that the account is just a tall tale.  But I do believe the Yahwists had a unique way of communicating their contributed content.  The post-exilic editors of the Bible did not exclude their pericopes but let them stand.  I do think the Yahwist spin makes it more likely that the account is an allegory.  This view of the Two Trees account supports the conclusion of Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) and other interpreters that the Two Trees are symbolic.  

HWA’s Two Trees Doctrine

HWA saw the Tree of Life from a unique perspective. He writes about the Two Trees:

So, in the Garden of Eden, in the midst of that garden, were two very special trees. They were symbolic trees. They were probably very literal trees. The one was not an apple. Adam did not eat an apple, that much I can tell you. But one tree was called the Tree of Life. The other was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Actually, they represented two different kinds of knowledge. The one tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented knowledge that man could produce himself—physical, materialistic knowledge only. But the Tree of Life would have given him the Spirit of God, which would have given him spiritual knowledge, knowledge to deal with God, to have a relationship with God, and knowledge to deal with his fellow man and to deal with people.

I am quoting throughout from transcripts of a radio broadcast (World Tomorrow Radio Broadcast, Numbers GSC021B and T36A, no date) that can be found on the Internet.  In this same manuscript, HWA states that the Tree of Life “represents the Holy Spirit.”  He also states that the Tree of Life represents “the law of give.” He states further, “the tree of life meant that God would impart immortal, eternal God-life to him (Adam).” The important concern to note is that none of what he presented about the Tree of Life is exegeted. It is all HWA’s viewpoint.  To believe his view has doctrinal gravitas, one must believe that HWA was inspired of God and spoke Ex Cathedra, that is, with the full authority of his ecclesiastical office with infallibility. 

None of HWA’s views comports with the Genesis account, which solely portrays the Tree of Life as a means of granting eternal life through consuming its fruit, with no involvement from God being necessary.  He does connect the Tree of Life with eternal life, but he does so by equating the Tree of Life to the Holy Spirit, which does not agree with Genesis. He states that the Trees are symbolic, but goes afield when he develops what the Trees symbolized.  He needed to exegete his meanings, but there is no exegesis, which is unusual in Armstrongist Biblical interpretation. Their interpreters almost always quote scriptures.  HWA, rather, uses reason. But that is not a great issue.  It is important to observe that both Armstrongist and Christian interpreters use reason at times for interpretation rather than exclusively relying on scripture. 

HWA also stated, “And the Tree of Life was shut up from mankind until Jesus Christ, the second Adam, came and was born.”  HWA casts the Tree in a major role in the NT.  Why, then, is there no mention of it in Jesus’ ministry or the Epistles? It makes an appearance once again in Revelation, where the imagery of eating to sustain life is present.  The Tree bears 12 different fruits monthly, and the leaves can be used for healing the nations. 

I recall many times HWA expressing frustration that the people in the pews did not understand his doctrine of the Two Trees.  This is not surprising considering that he assigned it varying meanings.  Further, it is not directly exegeted from the scripture in the Genesis account.  The people in the pews could not turn to a place in the Bible and find this doctrine.  Instead, they would find in Genesis an account that did not match his doctrine. Overall, I believe there is much less support for HWA’s doctrine of the Two Trees than there is for the Trinity.

Conclusion

HWA’s conclusion about the Tree of Life is non-literalist and based on reason rather than the exegesis of scripture.  There is no explicit mapping from the Genesis account of the Tree of Life to HWA’s ideas that the Tree represents special spiritual knowledge or the Holy Spirit, or the law of giving.  I have no counter-proposal to make to HWA’s view.  The data is inconclusive.  The authors of Proverbs used the phrase “tree of life” as a figure of speech.  Later, Jesus did not mention the Tree of Life in his earthly ministry.  Neither is the Yahwist view supported in the New Testament, that eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life would lead to eternal life.  New Testament scriptures such as Romans 6:23 make this emphatic.   The data does not point to a ready meaning for the symbolism.  But the scripture in some places is elastic, and I would recognize HWA’s novel meaning as a homiletic usage. I just could not elevate the meaning to doctrine. 

 

 

-