This idea of mine, which I quote below, I think is sound. I still stick to it because I think that it clears up a lot of confusion regarding *the two trees* and their purposes for being in the Garden of Eden:
Aside from the variety of other trees which Jehovah provided for the daily needs of the first human pair, God had placed two especially necessary trees in the "middle of the garden." Needless to say, they both bore seedless fruit.
Of these two trees Adam & Eve could eat of the one, the "tree of life," but not the other one. The fruit of the tree of life LITERALLY contained what the couple needed in order to live on perpetually. Yes, since they were mortal beings they would FOREVER need to continually eat of this tree, because it contained the essential ingredients necessary to ward off the aging process. For as long as they continued to eat the fruit of THIS tree their bodies would remain young, and thus they would never grow old and die.
Rather than denying them access to the tree of life, God actually intended for them to partake of it--because he WANTED them to continue living; and that's apparently the reason why we do not read of any prohibition from God against the first human pair eating of the tree of life any time they wished. ONLY IF THEY BECAME DISOBEDIENT would they no longer be allowed to enjoy the healthful, anti-degenerative benefits that come from the fruit of this tree. Genesis 3:22 does not actually mean that Adam & Eve had never before tasted the fruit from the tree of life, as other texts prove such an assumption to be groundless (see Genesis 1:29; 2:9, 16-17; 3:1-3, 11). Now, insofar as the other tree ("the tree of the knowledge of good and bad") its importance lay solely in the fact that it provided a WAY for Adam & Eve to prove themselves worthy of continued life--simply by NOT EATING OF IT, in obedience to their Creator's command. Thus, for as long as they would refrain from eating of the forbidden tree they would be privileged to eat of the tree of life ANYTIME that their bodies required it.
For more than one good reason, the privilege of life has to be contingent upon one's obedience to God's laws. Yes, it was not necessary that the forbidden tree contain an ingredient that would have a detrimental, age-inducing effect upon Adam and Eve simply because, were they to be cut off from further being allowed to eat of the tree of life (the fruit of which insured youthfulness), that in itself would cause them to begin to age and eventually die.
After posting this I have to leave for a while, because I'm due to catch up on a "honey do" or two. So, it will be several hours probably before I will be able to check back in on this thread. Perhaps I have said something though that may be a new thought to some who post here, or some serious lurker who doesn't post but merely comes here to read. Or even better yet, it would be especially swell if one of my beloved brothers at Bethel were to by chance read it, see the sensibleness of it, and as a result it eventually became the knowledge of all my brothers around the world.
Enjoy, and I welcome your comments.
Friday
.
Edited in order to restore the several apostrophes that I originally had in place, but for some silly reason disappeared once posted. Haven't figured out what makes that happen yet!
Edited by - Yadirf on 27 August 2002 18:38:47
Edited by - Yadirf on 27 August 2002 19:11:3