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.
-
Herbertism is a form of askesis, a practice venerated for centuries.
ReplyDelete<>
ReplyDeleteIf you have a complete account of everything he said, please share it with us.
One of my classmates in college opined that the tree of life was actually a marajuana plant. It's not clear what his motive was.
ReplyDeleteScout wrote:
ReplyDelete"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. "
This is a good reminder that the concept of Armstrongism and Mormonism of us becoming gods that are equal to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is blasphemous. Soirit beings, fine, but lower than the Godhead, just like the angels are.
I think the Tree of Life represents a missed opportunity. Initially, the only forbidden tree was the knowledge of good and evil, so life was a viable option until they blew it and picked the wrong tree first and hence the plan of redemption from 'before the foundation of the world' was established. Revelation is all about tying up all the loose ends in the grand scheme and access to the Tree of Life is restored thanks to the redemption. Maybe it's all one big metaphor.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant article, once again containing several fresh ideas which had never occurred to me. Gotta love it!
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the "other" tree, the tree whose fruit imparted knowledge of good and evil, is that its existence ignores the inherent polar aspects of the physical world. Polarity is a dominant theme throughout nature, and there are myriad examples of this. The truth is, once we become aware of any positive, (good is the positive pole) we also automatically become aware of its opposite, the negative or its absence (evil is the negative pole). It is axiomatic, totally natural, and simply unavoidable, making such a tree completely unneccessary.
This is why I've believed for many years that the tale of the two trees is an allegory. It is not unlike a concept derived from another philosophy, the sound of one hand clapping. Which makes it food for thought, and HWA certainly shared his thoughts on this at every possible opportunity. Towards the end of my tenure in the WCG, the lesson of the two trees had become the only sermon that the man would give. He adapted it to "Armstrongism", making it an integral part of our then religious beliefs.
BB
Herb nagged to death his audience with his interpretation of the two trees. Repetition of that order is used to imprison listeners minds with one particular viewpoint. Herb probably learnt this by observing the Nazis and Commies of his era.
ReplyDeleteAre these comments midrash? Many adults in the COG sphere have never heard Herbert himself preach or teach about the Tree of Life, so only focusing on Herbert's preaching becomes a memory argument for only a certain age bracket.
ReplyDeleteIn Jewish tradition the Torah is often referred to as "The tree of Life". They perceive the torah as a tree with it's wisdom and commandments providing spiritual sustenance and guidance.
They also see hope, healing and renewal in the TOL and see it helping people perservere and seek spiritual strength.
Jewish tradition looks at the imagery of a tree that God has designed, the roots, bark, branches and leaves. They see the physicalities of a tree representing the interconnections and interconnectedness of life, community and lineage.
The TOL represents their shared heritage and spiritual bonds from within their faith community. Some Synagogues are called Tree of Life.
The Jews seem to only perceive one Tree and or concentrate on that. They like to see what the TOL symbolizes, how the human and the divine relate through revelation, the connection between God and humanity, the path to spiritual growth and a deeper understanding of the divine. The TOL speaks to them on the fundemental aspects of what it means to be spiritual and human in the world. The potency and power to transform from the TOL.
The TOL and Genesis account shows the human desire to trangresses the boundary between divinity and humanity. It is a recurring theme in the bible as the Tower of Babel was a desire to trangress God's divinity.
In the Bible the TOL is mentioned 4 times in proverbs and Ezekiel and has a magnificent detailed description in Revelation.
Herb learned repetition from the Americans. Probably by watchng TV commercials. Don't blame everything on Hitler and Stalan. It's thoughtless and dumb.
ReplyDeleteFrom : Investigating the Pre-Biblical Origins
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bibleorigins.net/MansFallFromInnocenceAdamAdapaEnkidu.html
Makes sense to me...
"The Mesopotamians saw the world being created for the benefit of the gods, not man. Genesis refutes this notion, God made the world for man's benefit. I understand that the Hebrews, _employing INVERSIONS_, are recasting many of the Mesopotamian motifs and concepts by 180 degrees, turning them upside down and on their ear.
Why did the Hebrews seek to _deny, refute and challenge_ the Mesopotamian beliefs? Why did Christianity refute and deny Judaism? Why did Islam refute and deny Judaism and Christianity? Apparently each felt that its predecessor had wrong or erroneous beliefs regarding the relationship between God and Man and accordingly each sought to "correct" these "false" views via recastings or reworkings of the earlier stories in order to_deny refute and challenge_. For example, the New Testament while preserving verses from the Old Testament, gives these verses new meanings, rejecting the earlier Jewish interpretations. Islam recast certain stories in the Old and New Testaments, Abraham offered his son Ishmael to God instead of Isaac, Jesus is not the God who made Adam and Eve in his role as the Logos or Word, Allah is, not Yahweh or Christ."
To the point of the Two Trees. The story lifted from earlier Mesopotamian conflicts between the gods and man. In the original myths, the gods ate food and humans were the "worker bees" to feed the gods. The Two Trees were "God fruit Trees" and not for humans. Thus the fear expressed in Genesis that if humans ate of the "Tree of Life" they'd be like "us" and live forever. This was not to be so out they go. In the Mesopotamian myth humans annoyed the gods with their clamoring and noise so ultimately they destroyed them. The gods then had to take care of themselves. '
CONTINUE>>>
CONTINUED
ReplyDelete"This was forbidden knowledge, man was not supposed to know how to overpower a god. So an upset Anu summoned Adapa from Eridu in Sumer to appear at his heavenly abode to give account of himself. Upon realizing Adapa had been given these powers by Ea, Anu apparently concluded if this man has a god's forbidden knowledge (able to control the forces of nature via curses and incantations) he might as well be made a full-fledged god by having immortal life, thus the bread of life and water were presented for him to consume.
Why did Ea _not_ want man (Adapa) to possess immortality? Ea is portrayed as a wily trickster god, he is a god of great wisdom, and in some myths responsible for man's creation. Apparently Ea realized the "danger" in making man into an immortal god and acted to prevent this from happening by tricking Adapa into thinking the bread and water of life would kill him. In other words, Ea's wisdom, his ability to Foree the consequences of present actions surpasses Anu's.
Anu apparently failed to realize that if man was given immortality and made into a god the gods would lose their Sabbath Rest from earthly toil!
The Mesopotamians understood the gods had made man to relieve themselves of the grievous toil upon the earth endured in providing life's necessities for themselves: food, shelter and clothing. In creating man to be their slave, man's purpose in life was to provide the gods with all this, freeing them from toil on the earth for ever. In other words, in Mesopotamian thinking gods do not toil their for food, shelter and clothing, man does.
If man is given the boon of becoming a god, then who will provide the gods with life's basic needs: food shelter and clothing? The gods will have to return to the earth and provide these needs for themselves as there will no longer be mortal men to do this grievous labor on their behalf.
C
"So, Ea _wisely_ sabotoged Anu's plan to make man immortal with the bread and water of life. This myth also explains why man does not have immortality. He does not have it because a god, Ea, willed it so that the gods would not lose their Sabbath Rest from earthly toil."
"In the Mesopotamian origin story, it was the gods who rested on the Sabbath after the humans were destroyed.
The Hebrews reversed the whole story in Genesis but leaving much of the Mesopotamian Myth to be discerned. Makes sense to me.
I would highly recommend a long read of the entire article to get the proper sense of the Mesopotamian myths that preceded the Hebrew spin put on them in Genesis to perhaps see the story of "The Two Trees" and how it came to be in the Hebrew version.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bibleorigins.net/MansFallFromInnocenceAdamAdapaEnkidu.html
As well, here is an even more specific explanation of the Two Trees of Genesis as first conceived previous to Genesis by the Mesopotamians. Very long. Very detailed in the myths historic contexts. All origin myths spring from and are tweeked and twisted with a better understanding, it is thought, by those that spin the new ones.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bibleorigins.net/EdensTreeofKnowledgeLife.html
Byker Bob 9:59 wrote, “The truth is, once we become aware of any positive, (good is the positive pole) we also automatically become aware of its opposite”
ReplyDeleteYou point out something that is perceptive. What you mention is the view held by many theologians, including Augustine, that evil is the privation (or deprivation) of good. The contrast is that good has substance and is the default condition in which God created the Cosmos and evil is just an insubstantial absence of good. Evil is then, parasitic on good. For instance, eating is good but if you eat the wrong things or too much it is bad for you and will make you sick. God did not create or intend bad eating.
My own view, which matches yours, implies to me that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes that without help humankind will seek good but naturally fall victim to its attendant privation, that is, evil. The Elohim know what evil is and know how to avoid it. Humankind in trying to run a secular system is not sure what evil is and does not know how to avoid it.
My two cents.
Scout
How sad you get the athiest character out to write unholy rubbish and muddy the water.
ReplyDelete6.55 AM, God allowed the snake into the garden of Eden because that's the way the world works. Eventually every belief and every right is challenged, so I'd rather have my beliefs challenged in an diplomatic manner than in some abusive way elsewhere. Churches don't agree with this since they view their members as children/dumb sheep rather than adults.
Delete@6:55~ You're not very scientific, are you, buddy? Test and retest. Prove that a given concept or theory is true by attempting to prove opposing ones. Alternatively, try to disprove your original concept. If something stands up to this type of scrutiny, it is generally presumed to be true.
DeleteIt may not seem so, but Dennis's atheistic musings actually help and strengthen readers. Besides, he usually leaves us a few valuable nuggets in the mix!
Anonymous 12:03 wrote, “Are these comments midrash?”
ReplyDeleteDepends on how you mean it. Midrash is a method of Biblical exegesis used by Jewish theologians. It is also a compilation of their arguments that exists as a book. I am using the term in the former sense. Although I am descended in part from the Sephardim, I am not conversant with their precise methodology. I follow Christian models of interpretation.
An important point that you bring up is that Judaism has an interpretation of the Tree of Life. In my view the Jewish interpretation does not agree with HWA’s interpretation. The Tree of Life account in Genesis is interpretated in many different ways by different people and groups.
Thanks for the additional information and viewpoint you contributed.
Scout
I have a feeling this is one of those posts which will generate multiple comments for it generates multiple questions.
ReplyDeleteI was waiting on Byker Bob before I chimed in to expound on his brilliant observation on "polarity". This concept demonstrates to me how the Bible, being a book of few words, can reveal a tremendous amount of knowledge without having to go into a lot of detail. I think the same can be said when considering the " tree of life".
Partaking of the tree of life and eating the bread of life (both picturing the receiving of the spirit of life) are allegorical illustrations of how Scripture teaches the same fundamental truth (salvation) in a variety of ways.
We know that salvation is secured in one's initial faith in Jesus Christ, which is pictured by the Eucharist. But, the days of Unleavened bread picture the feeding on that Bread of life (Christ) for 7 days, not 1, which makes it a fitting illustration of the Christian's sanctification, which leads to the eventual consummation of the salvation event (glorification) which occurs at the resurrection at Christ's return. I believe this entire process is conveyed in the simple terminology, tree of life, bread of life, and spirit of life. This is also
why I believe that the 5-6 scriptures that SEEM to portray an intermediate state can be reconciled when viewed in the light of of God's overall plan.
Did the thief on the cross have a special dispensation and an exemption to the rule of the 3 stages of salvation? No! When we consider the thief's question, (Remember me when you come into your kingdom), and Christ's answer, which is dependent on the punctuation of the text, this too can be reconciled.
I don't see the thief as being the exception to the rule, but an example that no one, living or dead, will be exempted from having a fair chance to partake and receive God's gift. Christ said,
"if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me", John 12:32.
We read in Revelation that " the rest of the dead lived not again until (so they are not alive now) the thousand years were finished", 20:4. "And I saw the dead small and great stand (in resurrection) before God, and the books were opened, and another book was opened, the book of LIFE".
What purpose is served here by opening the book of LIFE? Is it not to add names to it? Is this not an opportunity for salvation? Is this not when, " if anyone thirst let him come and drink (receive the spirit) ", John 7:37-39?
The book of life, eating from the tree of life (Rev.2:7), the bread of life, the spirit of life, are all salvation terms which mean one and the same thing. I can't be dogmatic, but the Genesis 3 account may be an illustration of Adam and Eve's desire to repent and return to God and the garden, which normally would be the right thing to do, but not in this case. This was not a part of God's overall plan for mankind. Consequences and lessons for disobedience had to run its full course, therefore access to the tree and further spiritual knowledge was cut off. Everything had to be done according to God's methodology and timetable., a lesson to we need to learn and accept today!
A very thought provoking post Scout!
Anonymous 12:03 also wrote, “The TOL (Tree of Life) and Genesis account shows the human desire to trangresses the boundary between divinity and humanity.”
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with that viewpoint and I feel it has traction. But it does not go far enough. Not only does the Tree of Life allegory show that humans want to enter the realm of the Elohim, it shows that they can do so. So, the Tree of Life has to be protected from their aggression by means of supernatural forces.
This point is problematical and does not have a good fit with any interpretations I have seen. Human beings illicitly usurping the role of God is nothing new. But human beings able to potentially wrest away Godly attributes is alarming. But that is what the Tree of Life allegory portrays. Go figure.
Scout
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteYou raise some good historical issues. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be written down around 1400 BC. The Genesis account would have occurred millennia earlier. Presumably, in the period before Genesis was documented as part of the Torah, the Two Trees account existed as an oral tradition. And the ancient account of the Two Trees filtered out to other Near Eastern nations where it evolved to match various cultures and religious views. I believe that Genesis carries the original version. (And that is my belief and not something I can now support with research.) Although the Genesis version has been subject to human curation.
But the original version is problematical enough. There is nowhere else in the Judeo-Christian tradition where the idea occurs that humans can successfully invade, if the Elohim do not set up a security perimeter, the Godly realm. It’s alarming. It supports the idea of a monistic reality. There is not the traditional dualism of the natural and the supernatural but everything exists as a single contiguous reality. This would mean that God does not exist in some other dimension but exists in the same dimension with his created artifacts. This lends fresh significance to GTA’s idea that if you had a rocket ship that you could fly to God’s throne given enough time.
The Yahwists who contributed this to the Torah seem to have lived around the time of David and Solomon. The height of Judah’s national power. They used the term Yahweh for God and used a form a pre-exilic Hebrew that dates them and that differs from the other Torah sources. And, naturally, they were pre-occupied with the affairs of Judah. So, their pericopes are a result of both unique curation but also unique national viewpoint. Having said that, at this point, I do not know what this history’s nuances and implications are. I do know that nobody’s interpretation, whether Armstrongist, Judaic, Christian or Atheist, can ignore these facts.
Scout