The Tree of Life as God's Life

quote:

---

I mean in the way of contrast. In the way of the distance between a living hand and a lifeless glove is like the distance between an empty person devoid of God's life and a person filled to the brim with God's life.

---

No it doesn't. The glove is not living. A person without God is not lifeless. The quality of life may or may not be different, but the person is not lifeless.A glove filled with a hand can still have holes in it and not serve its purpose.

quote:

---

Both were empty. Both needed God's life. Not just the bad person needed divine life. The good person went first to demonstrate that man needs God's life.

---

No they weren't. They needed proper instruction.

quote:

---

Adam was to guard the garden.

---

You are adding to the story.

quote:

---

But the Hebrew word there in Genesis 2:15 - "dress and keep" the garden is the same Hebrew word as in 3:24 - "keep the way to the tree of life"

---

But they are used differently. There is no implication that Adam was to guard (protect) the garden from anything. The word keep here is also "Shamar" which is used in your two verses.Did God want him to observe the covenant by doing it or guard it as in protecting it from something?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Proper instruction is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Yep, in every way.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-16-2006 09:58 PM

Since the tree of life is mentioned in connection with the first man created it must have great significance. It must speak something about God's purpose and plan in creating man.For those who think Genesis has nothing to do with the rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament, they may feel that no great significance is indicated in the tree of life. But for us who view the plenary completeness of the all the books of the Old Testament and New Testament canon, we have to consider that the Bible's focus on God giving to man Himself as divine and eternal life, should be reflected from the beginning of the Bible's revelation. It seems definitely to be recapitulated as a major theme in the last book of the Bible.Therefore I submit this significance of the tree of life:The tree of life has something to do with God's plan to BLEND and to MINGLE His being with man's being. It has something to do with God's intention to dispense His devine life and nature into man so that God and man mutually indwell one another.The tree of life has something to do with man receiving God Himself into his being that God could be expressed from within man and man could live in the sphere and realm of God. The tree of life has to do with God obtaining a humanity which is the mingling and blending of His uncreated life with man's created life - a kind of incarnation. That is a kind of duplication of what Jesus Christ is as the God-Man.God as the invisible and uncreated Person made man as a vessel to contain God. That is what we see in Jesus Christ - a man in Whom the Father lived and acted and moved and was expressed and glorified.The tree of life has to do with God's eternal plan to have "sons". (Sons does not mean males here. It means the same life of God)."Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us into sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will..." (Eph. 1:4,5)God had a good pleasure. He had a will. He had it before the foundation of the world. That means before the creation of the world. He had a plan and predestinated some people unto "sonship". That is the place and position of a son of God, one who shares the holiness of God in a life relationship as a Father to a son.So I submit that the tree of life in Genesis speaks of God's eternal plan to obtain sons of God who possess the life of God and are an extension of the divine family of God of which God is the unique progenerating Father and Jesus Christ is the Eldest Brother and prototype.God wants to mass produce sons like the standard model of His Son Christ the unique Redeemer and Savior.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 07:02 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 07:04 AM

Purpledawn, If you have doubt about the charge of Israel to also guard the law read the book of Judges.You will see there the calamity that Eli the priest and Israel had when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant which had the Torah inside. It was a national disaster and Eli fell back and broke his neck, dying, when he heard that the ark with the law of God had been captured by the Gentile pagans.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 07:08 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 07:09 AM

quote:

---

If you have doubt about the charge of Israel to also guard the law read the book of Judges.

---

That isn't what my question refers to in Message 211. My question was concerning the circumcision covenant. It is something to keep not to guard.We were talking about whether Adam was to guard the garden.My point was that the text does not support that interpretation.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

A person without God is not lifeless at all, as far as the created natural life is concerned. I emphatically agree.What I am saying is that the Bible speaks of God Himself in His uncreated and eternal existence as the ultimate life, the divine life. And this uncreated divine life He wants to impart into the created natural life of man.Of course if you disregard the New Testament it doesn’t help in your grasping this truth. However, even from the Old Testament Solomon, for example, having all that this natural life had to offer confessed that all things were vanity of vanities. He knew that SOMETHING was missing in his life.It is not much unlike Jimi Hendrix who wrote a song “I don’t live today.” In popular culture's terms Hendrix wrote:“Will I live tomorrow? Well I just can't say. All I am sure of is I don't live today. All I know is I’m living at the bottom of a grave . I don’t live today!”This acute sense of vanity is made much more painful by the entrance of sin in man’s fallen life. I will continue latter with your “keep” objection.And your comment about holes in a glove is noted. I agree that the glove can be damaged. Any analogy is very easy to poke holes in. I could say "No. A hand goes into a mitten also. So there."It's an imperfect analogy. I think it is good nonetheless in the whole context of the Old and New Testaments.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-21-2006 07:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-21-2006 07:59 AM

quote:

---

What I am saying is that the Bible speaks of God Himself in His uncreated and eternal existence as the ultimate life, the divine life. And this uncreated divine life He wants to impart into the created natural life of man.

---

You haven't really shown this in the plain text meaning.Unfortunately you and I will not agree since I am looking at the plain text and you are using the biblical text as a vehicle for conveying a specific lesson, which IMO isn't based on the plain text meaning.So since your discussion seems to be based outside the plain text, there is nothing for us to discuss.I don't disregard the NT, but I do understand the reality behind its creation.But the homiletics of the NT do not negate the plain text meaning of the OT.When you want to discuss plain text, give me a buzz.
But for now, I'm out. My gloves are full.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You don't think the whole Bible is one revelation. So what you don't see plainly stated in Genesis you think has nothing to do with Genesis. And what is plainly stated in Genesis you don't seem that clear about either. Correct. We probaby will not agree. I won't isolate Genesis from the rest of the Bible as if it has nothing to do with it.Unfortunetely your appeal to the plain text I see not as a vehicle for understanding but as a filter for discarding important aspects of the Scripture. These other helps help in seeing how Genesis is just an organic part of a larger whole. The Scripture really interprets itself. Even the logic of the plain text lends very much to the understanding of the tree of life. If it does not completely do so it significantly does so.If God created all life then His life is uncreated. That is the first obvious fact.The second fact which may not be so obvious but which I think there is a very strong case for, is the the tree of life signifies more than simply an everlasting human life. And this I went over extensively in this discussion before. I don't mind repeating it for someone new joining the discussion. I am not terribly inclinded to repeat it to someone who has been in the discussion from the start and doesn't get it or see the strength of the logic.But to review, I showed that Adam's interaction with the two trees, and God's reaction at Adam's choice stronglyu imply that that the tree of life meant something more than just an everlasting human life. God would not allow man to partake of both trees. That is obvious. He had to choose one or the other.Since there was no reason for Adam to die other than eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the tree of life was not needed simply to keep Adam alive. So then what was this tree of life to do? Only God's life is uncreated. It must signify bringing God and man together in a living union. That is voluntary. That is for man's choosing and taking freely. That is not mandatory. That is the result of the freedom of man's choice.But to be created and to be created "very good" by God to live on, is not man's choice. That he has by creation. If man does not disobey God to take in death, he should continue to live on in a very good state. But the choice to be a vessel of God's life is there in the tree of life. Once man has taken the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the choice to take the tree of life is terminated. It cannot come back without a special salvific work of God. And this is the theme of the rest of the Bible, God's salvation to bring man back to the life of God.I also showed many things in the text about the enemy of God in the form of sin began to work in Cain. And light was shed on this interpretation from elsewhere in the Scriptures.Now here is where the rest of the Bible comes in. We are plainly told elsewhere that God's plan is to dispense His life into man. And we are told that the fallen and estranged man was "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). This is in the New Testament. If you don't think the New Testament has anything to do with the Old Testament, you're going to miss a great deal of the whole picture of the Bible. I don't think you understand the reality behind its creation. Did I say that the New Testament negated the plain text meaning of the Old Testament? Where's the example of this negation in my discussion? The implication of the plain text to me is that the tree of life must represent something more than an everlasting human life. What is there beside an everlasting human life for man to have?With the help of the plain text of the many other books to which this book is a "Genesis" we see that the tree of life must point to God Himself.And of course you cannot lightly disregard the evidence of a certain man in human history named Jesus Christ. His impact on human history is cataclysmic, far reaching, unparelleled. He claims to be a man within Whom lives God. And He also claimed to give that reality to others.The case for the tree of life representing the life of God is therefore very strong. And aside from raising minor complaints here and there, I don't think you have shown that it is not a strong case.If you have a postion at all, I would like to see you summarize it.Of what do you think Genesis is a Genesis of? Do you think the introductory book has nothing to do with the book? Even if you say Genesis is only an intro to the five books of Moses, I could present a fairly strong case that the tree of life represents the life of God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:20 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:22 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:23 AM

quote:

---

You don't think the whole Bible is one revelation. So what you don't see plainly stated in Genesis you think has nothing to do with Genesis.

---

Be very careful in thinking you think you know what I think.

quote:

---

Unfortunetely your appeal to the plain text I see not as a vehicle for understanding but as a filter for discarding important aspects of the Scripture. These other helps help in seeing how Genesis is just an organic part of a larger whole. The Scripture really interprets itself.

---

It is a filter for discarding added dogma and tradition, not the important aspects of the writings.The scripture, which is not a living thing, cannot interpret itself. While an older writing can help to understand a newer writing, a newer writing cannot be used to explain an older writing; unless of course the newer writing says specifically that it is explaining that older writing.

quote:

---

I don't think you understand the reality behind its creation.

---

Again with the thinking. I suggest not underestimating what I understand.

quote:

---

Did I say that the New Testament negated the plain text meaning of the Old Testament? Where's the example of this negation in my discussion?

---

Did I say that you said that the NT negated the plain text meaning of the OT?

quote:

---

If you have a postion at all, I would like to see you summarize it.

---

quote:

---

Of what do you think Genesis is a Genesis of? Do you think the introductory book has nothing to do with the book?

---

Bereshith is one of the Torah scrolls which contain teaching or instruction for the Hebrew people. The Hebrew creation story is contained within Bereshith along with other Hebrew religious stories.When the Hebrew was put into Greek (LXX) titles were given to the scrolls by the subject matter contained within each scroll. Considering it starts with a creation story, it is logical to place the book first in a compilation.

quote:

---

Even if you say Genesis is only an intro to the five books of Moses, I could present a fairly strong case that the tree of life represents the life of God

---

That's what I thought you were attempting to do in this thread.I just don't agree that going through the grape vine gets you there or serves a purpose to the original story.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 02-27-2006 09:59 AM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You won't find too much dogma or tradition that the tree of life in Genesis represents the life of God. Neither will you find much traditional teaching that states that.This discussion is on the tree of life as the representative of the life of God. If you don't agree then I'd like to see your alternative intepretation.You've sat back enough and complained about my posts. So let's see your alternative positive contribution to an understanding of the tree of life. It is time for you to put forth your alternative idea.Since I have developed mine quite much. Let me examine yours and question you concerning your more adaquate understanding.What was the tree of life? Can you present something not vague and not non-commital to that question? In other words, you've gripped enough about what I wrote, paragraph by paragraph. Now contribute your positive ideas about the meaning of the tree of life in Genesis.

quote:

---

You've sat back enough and complained about my posts. So let's see your alternative positive contribution to an understanding of the tree of life. It is time for you to put forth your alternative idea.

---

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was complaining. I thought I was disagreeing.

quote:

---

Since I have developed mine quite much. Let me examine yours and question you concerning your more adaquate understanding.

---

You've had two chances. Adequacy depends on the purpose of your writing.My approach is to read the simple meaning of the text. I'm not trying to present a lesson. Within the story the TOL is just what it says.In the OP you asked: Can anyone see how the tree of life represents God imparting Himself into man's life to produce a union of God and man? Obviously, my answer is no. I don't feel the plain reading of the story supports that premise.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Halleujah...anything else makes no sense to me. But awestruck dumb I remain at the prospect.

iano,One way to understand the tree of life is by way of contrast. That is we should examine what happened to man when he took of the opposite tree. By studying what happened to man when he took TOKGE we may infer more concerning what TOL would have meant to man.The process that was activated within humanity triggered by the eating of the TOKGE had its development and climax in the gradual degradation of man. This degradation culminated in the societal condition that brought in the flood of Noah.It started with man running away from God, hiding from God, self justifying before God, blaming the other party before God, inventing religion, murdering the true seekers of God, departing from the presence of God, forming the godless world, etc, etc. Eventually God says that man had become flesh. Eventually God saw that the thoughts and imaginations of man's heart were only evil continually.This is interesting because supposedly man was to receive the knowledge of good and evil. But what actually came out was that man's thought and imagination were only evil continually, as God pronounces. The earth is filled with violence issueing from a continually evil mind. And it repents God that He has made man. The divine judgment is brought in.However I'm reluctant to say that the flood of Noah was the absolute end of this slide downwards. That is because the race then collected into a rebellion against God under the abuse of human government at Babel. And God had to scatter and divide human beings to discourage this. Around this time God could not fulfill His purpose with the created race. So He initiated the called race whose forerunner was Abraham.Anyway, the continual slide downward into seperation from God and manifestation of evil by the man dominated by his flesh offers a contrast. By this contrast we can be helped to know what the tree of life would have meant for the human race. This way of contrast is not the only method of interpretation. But I think it assists in understanding the tree of life.

That's very simple and really needs nothing more to discuss.But I think the explanation is not adaquate. Genesis says that God breathed into man's nostrils and man became a living soul. If life was imparted to man by God in order to make him a living soul, then what is the further need of a tree of life? Which of the two trees do you think had the more prevailing effect on man? Which of the two trees was the more powerful, counciling out or nullifying the effect of the other?Would Adam taking in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil overcome the effect of eating the tree of life? Or was it the other way around - eating of the tree of life would nullify the effect of eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

But I think the explanation is not adaquate. Genesis says that God breathed into man's nostrils and man became a living soul. If life was imparted to man by God in order to make him a living soul, then what is the further need of a tree of life?

---

IMO, you are seeking more from the story than it can provide.

quote:

---

Would Adam taking in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil overcome the effect of eating the tree of life? Or was it the other way around - eating of the tree of life would nullify the effect of eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

---

Neither

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz