Transforming Grace

I posted twice last week on children’s bibles and their unhealthy focus on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I was also preparing last week to speak at a men’s breakfast on the discipline of work. As I read Genesis 2 again, I was struck by the awkward syntax of Genesis 2:7-9:

Genesis 2:7-9 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gordon Wenham states that some have surmised that there may have been only one tree at the centre of the garden in the original Paradiesgeschichte and that the other tree of Gen 3:3 was added at Gen 2:9 later:

This could be corroborated by the awkward way “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is tacked on this verse.

Wenham also shows that this is not unusual syntax as it occurs elsewhere in Genesis and the Pentateuch:

Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night- and the stars.

Genesis 34:29 All their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and plundered. [I'm not sure which one applies here]

Numbers 13:23 And they came to the Valley of Eshcol and cut down from there a branch with a single cluster of grapes, and they carried it on a pole between two of them; they also brought some pomegranates and figs.

Could it be that the syntax is deliberately awkward in order to highlight the primacy of the the first tree? The equivalent in English being something like “Sandra was at the party, oh yes, and so was Pete”, the story being primarily about Sandra.

If this is the way the Hebrew syntax functions then our accounts of the creation narrative should focus more heavily on the tree of life and how Adam and Eve missed what they were really meant to have; eternal life.

If you have a grasp of Hebrew, I’d be grateful for your comment.

After yesterday’s blog on kids’ bibles setting God up as a severe school master type in their accounts of creation, I’ve found one exception, almost.

The Lion Illustrated Bible for Children, written by Lois Rock, states:

Then God planted a garden in Eden, in the East. It was filled with beautiful trees that gave good fruit. In the middle of the garden stood the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad.

God placed the man in the Garden of Eden, so that it would be a home for him. “Take care of this place,” said God, “and it will provide you with all you need. Only take care not to eat the fruit from the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad, for if you do, you will die.”

This is so nearly very good. It makes God appear generous and it mentions the tree of life. What it doesn’t do is explain the function of the tree of life as it does the other tree. As both trees function as a means of ratifying God’s promise, it would be better phrased “In the middle of the garden stood the tree that gives the promise of life forever and…” This way, the primary focus is on the promises of God with a secondary focus on the prohibition.

I’m relieved that my boys will soon be joining their sister in reading the International Childrens’ Bible.

It’s been a while since I wrote anything on the Garden of Eden. We have several children’s bibles which I read to my boys at bedtime. Every one of these picture bibles begins with creation and makes the same mistake, mentioning only one tree in the Garden, focusing only on God’s prohibition, “do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or you will die”. Each time we begin to read a new bible my boys get the same wrong impression that Eve had of God; that he is a miserly, restrictive, severe school master sort of God.

Here’s some examples:

The Christian Focus Story Bible (Christian Focus)
“God told Adam that he was not to eat from the knowledge of good and evil. But Satan tempted Eve.”

First Bible Stories (Marks & Spencer)
“In the centre of the garden grew a special tree. It was called the Tree of Knowledge. God made it very clear that this tree was different from all the other trees. ‘You must not eat the fruit of this tree’, God warned Adam and Eve.”

Storyteller Bible (Lion)
“There’s just one more thing,” God said. “Do you see that tree over there? The one in the middle of the garden? Well, the fruit of that tree is not good for you.”

My very first bible (Lion)
The snake whispered what to do: they ate some fruit God had told them not to eat.

Meeting with God (Christian Focus)
He also gave them a very simple command to obey. He told them they must not eat from one tree that grew in their garden home, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or they would die.

Instead of simply reading these accounts, I discuss with the boys the fact that there were two trees in the garden with a promise attached to each. We focus on the goodness and generosity of God in offering Adam and Eve the promise of eternal life if they would show him their faith in his promise by eating from the tree of life. We discuss the horror of their choice to eat from the other tree, wanting what God had said they were not to have, knowledge of good and evil. Then we talk about the punishment God threatened if they disobeyed God’s law, the threat of execution by God.

Three things result. First, my boys get the gospel. They get that God is generous and good and that they need Jesus to keep the law and die by execution as their substitute. Second, they get the Lord’s Supper. If eating the fruit of the tree of life was the way Adam and Eve were to show God that they trusted his promise, then eating the Lord’s Supper is the way God’s people show they trust the promises of God in Jesus and so inherit the promise of eternal life. Third, they learn to read all secondary Christian literature with caution. If it is not in the grown up bible then it needs careful consideration before we take it as gospel truth.

My sons are five and three years old. If they can get the Garden of Eden then it is time our children’s bible writers got it too. Oh, and, what’s the reason kids can’t express their faith in Christ in his Supper?

I’ve posted a number of times on the initial conditions in the Garden of Eden. The following table aims to draw together in one place the contrasts between the traditional “one tree” model of the garden and the “two tree” model.

This table may alter from time to time as I tighten up the language and add some comparisons.

This post is on a controversial issue. I will declare from the outset that, due to my understanding of the function of the two trees in the Garden of Eden within the Adamic Covenant, I hold to the view that Hell/Hades/Sheol is an intermediate state equivalent to death row, where those who die apart from Christ consciously await judgement and execution by divine decree. My basis for this is explained in this post but readers will benefit from reviewing the background work on the Garden of Eden and the distinction between natural death and judicial death at the fall.

There are broadly three Christian views on the sentence handed to the wicked on judgement day.

The first is eternal conscious torment and physical torture. The resurrected bodies of the damned are thrown into a lake of fire (Rev 20:14) where their bodies are not destroyed but tortured by fire and worms (Isa 66:24) and where their consciences are tormented eternally.

The second is annihilationism which, in its simplest form, states that mortal death is judgement and that the person simply ceases to exist.

The third, which has been confused with simple annihilationism, is death-row executionism. The wicked die and are held in a place of conscious torment where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth as they await judgement and sentencing. The sentence they know and expect from Genesis 2:17 is to miss out on the promise of eternal life by being summarily executed by royal decree.

The second view is unbiblical as man is destined to die once and after that face judgement (Hebrews 9:27).

The first and third views are hotly debated with respect to the nature of the sentence. I have considered arguments for and against both views. I am yet to come across an argument which properly takes into account the initial conditions in the Garden of Eden. Most arguments start with proof texts or philosophical constructs about the nature of God or the nature of man. I believe two initial conditions at creation support the death-row executionism view.

First, Adam and Eve were not created with immortality. God had not promised that they would live forever. The promise of immortality would be sealed as they ate by faith in God’s word from the tree of life. Eternal conscious torment assumes either that:

1. the human soul is created with immortality and so must suffer eternally as it cannot be destroyed.
2. God will raise the bodies of the dead and impose immortality on them in order to torment and torture them eternally.

Plato and Aristotle, who have arguably influenced biblical scholars, taught that the soul is immortal but there are no texts in the bible which explicitly support this anthropology. Indeed, the bible clearly states that God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) and that God will destroy the body and soul in hell (Matt 10:28). Unless explicitly stated we should not assume that immortality is a communicable attribute.

Second, and more importantly, the sentence for rebellion announced by God in Genesis 2:17 was execution by royal decree. Adam and Eve knew explicitly that should they eat from the prohibited tree God would summarily execute them. There was no sentence of eternal conscious torment and physical torture for disobedience in the Garden. If we change the nature of the sentence we make God out to be a liar. God does not lie (Heb 6:18). If he says “I will summarily execute you for rebellion” then that is what God will do. Put simply, “The wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

I am yet to find a defence of eternal conscious torment and torture which deals satisfactorily with either of these initial creation conditions. The executionist view of the sentence at judgement on the wicked and their conscious torment on death-row (the intermediate state) makes best sense to me of the controversial passages in scripture, both the apollumi (destruction) and waling/gnashing passages. More on these passages will follow later.

Ever wonder why, if the wages of sin is death and Christ died for our sin why Christians still die? Understanding what happened at the fall helps shed some light. God said to Adam, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:17).

When Adam and Eve ate from that tree he did not die. Instead, they were excluded from God’s life sustaining presence and so they grew old and Adam died naturally at 930 years of age (Gen 5:5).

Adam’s natural death in old age is to be distinguished from God’s threat of death. The threat of death for disobedience was to be judicial and by summary execution as Hamilton notes in his study of the Hebrew term translated “die” in Genesis 2:17:

all that môt tāmût clearly conveys is the announcement of death sentence by divine or royal decree. (Hamilton, The book of Genesis, NICOT, 1987)

The natural death of Adam and Eve was not judicial in this sense. Instead, God graciously granted them a stay of execution, he postponed their sentence. The natural or mortal death of human beings is not the judgement threatened in Gen 2:17. Rather, being shut out of God’s life giving presence was a consequence of sin. God effectively said to Adam and Eve “you cannot remain in my presence as sinners or I will consume you in my holiness and purity.”

The judicial death promised by God is the second death of Revelation 20:14-15. All mortal bodies will be raised, face judgement and must be executed by royal decree (Gen 2:17). God never lies. The sentence pronounced in Eden is not commuted but postponed. Fallen human beings can only escape this second death by faith union with Christ in his substitutionary judicial execution. His death was both natural and judicial. Christians should not, therefore, fear natural death as it is only falling asleep (1 Thess 4:14-15) which is a consequence of being shut out of God’s presence because of sin.

The traditional reformed covenant of works treats the two trees in the midst of the garden as sacraments but unequally. Broadly speaking, Calvinist sacramental theology is applied to the prohibited tree but a Zwinglian understanding of sacraments is applied to the tree of life.

Calvin’s definition of a sacrament integrates a word of promise with a sacrament so that one never has

a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it [Institutes Book 4 Ch14].

It is in this way that God faithfully and immediately sealed his promise signified by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the first time Adam and Eve ate the fruit of that tree, their eyes were opened (Gen 3:7). The covenant of works holds that Adam and Eve freely and frequently ate from the tree of life but that God did not seal on them the promise of eternal life as they ate. Rather, the covenant of works is Zwinglian with respect to the promise made by God by the tree of life. Adam is simply reminded each time he eats freely from that tree of what he must hope for, which is eternal life. His eating binds him in oath to God’s covenant of works.

The reformers had to discriminate against the tree of life in this way because of a Platonic or Aristotlean presupposition that that Adam and Evil were created with immortality, at least with an immortal soul.

Calvin writes in his commentary on Genesis

Three gradations, indeed, are to be noted in the creation of man; that his dead body was formed out of the dust of the earth; that it was endued with a soul, whence it should receive vital motion; and that on this soul God engraved his own image, to which immortality is annexed.

This presupposition renders the Calvin’s sacramental theology redundant with respect to the tree of life. Why would God promise, by means of a sacrament, to give Adam and Eve what they already possessed?

Had the reformers applied Calvin’s sacramental theology to both trees equally, they would have been required to reject a Platonic or Aristotlean understanding of the immortality of the soul and conclude instead that Adam and Eve did not possess immortality because God had not yet promised it to them.

Does the bible state that the human soul is immortal? I can’t think of any supporting references. We are told that God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) and that the soul can be destroyed (Ps 109:31, Isa 10:18, Matt 10:2 . Unless explicitly stated in scripture we cannot simply assume that immortality is a communicable attribute.

How did God identify the two trees to Adam? Did the trees have any distinguishing features? Was there something supernatural about them? Did Adam develop a sense of trust in the trees as a result of the properties of the fruits themselves?

This could not be the case. The function of the trees was sacramental. They were signs and seals of the promises of God, not supernatural agents in themselves. They did not function ex opere operato. God sought to test and prove Adam’s faith and obedience to his word by means of these two alternative sacraments. “Eat this tree I promise you will live forever, eat the other tree and I promise you moral knowledge but I will kill you.” Cornelius Van Til writes:

If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had been naturally different from other trees it could not have served its unique purpose. That the commandment might appear as supernatural the natural had to appear as really natural. The supernatural could not be recognised for what it was unless the natural were also recognised for what it was. There had to be regularity if there was to be a genuine exception [Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976) p29]

Van Til applies this principle to only one tree.  It applied to both. The two trees in the midst of the garden could have no supernatural properties by which to prejudice the test of faith and obedience in God’s promises. Adam was to trust in the word of God alone.

In my next blog, I’ll comment on how the traditional reformed covenant of works treats the two trees unequally in this respect.

The names of the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained God’s promises. This is not controversial. John Calvin writes about the promises contained in the names:

The very name of the tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] shows the sole purpose of the precept was to keep him content with his lot and to prevent him from becoming puffed up with wicked lust. But the promise by which he was bidden to hope for eternal life so long as he ate from the tree of life, and, conversely, the terrible threat of death once he tasted of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, served to prove and exercise his faith. [Institutes Book II chapter I.4 - my emphasis added]

This naming of the trees is consistent with other names in the bible. God renamed Abram. Genesis 17:5 “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.” The name Abraham means “father of a multitude.” The promise of God is contained in the name.

Jesus is so called because “he will save his people from their sins” Matthew 1:21, his name contains the promise that God saves. Jesus then names himself seven times in John’s gospel and his names contain in them the promises of God.

• “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35
• “I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12
• “I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:9
• “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11
• “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25
• “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6
• “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

The name of the tree of life contained the promise of eternal life (Gen 3:22) and name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained the promise of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:6-7).

In my next blog on this subject I’ll look at the relationship between God, the names of the trees and Adam’s relationship with God through them.

I’ve been a Christian for 15 years. Early in my Christian life I was told that Adam and Eve were created with immortality but they lost it at the fall. For many years I had a nagging question: “what then was the function of the tree of life?” Surely immortality rendered the tree of life functionally redundant.

The traditional reformed covenant of works attempted to solve this problem by making eternal celestial life, signified by the tree of life, the reward for Adam and Eve’s good behaviour. But this makes little sense. Adam and Eve were free to eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17). Their access to the tree of life was unrestricted and unconditional. It served as a sign and seal of God’s promise of eternal life and not simply a sign of a future reward for obedience.

I made the study of the function of the tree of life the subject of my third year dissertation at Oak Hill. My dissertation did not cover the subject comprehensively, it was too multi-disciplinary for one semester’s work. I have developed in some areas of thinking since then and these are now included in my outline.

The logical inconsistencies in the traditional covenant of works do not make my understanding right. The covenant of grace in the garden stands or falls, I believe, on three basic points:

1. The names of the trees contain promises of God and Adam had knowledge of the promises
2. The fruit of the trees functioned equally as covenantal sacraments
3. The covenant of grace in the garden is consistent with God’s dealing with his people as revealed in the rest of scripture

These three points need some justification, which will follow in subsequent posts.