Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Cutter, May 1, 2008.
Is the Tree of Life in Revelation 22 the same Tree of Life that is in Genesis 3?
Why or why not?
I believe they are one and the same tree. My reason for believing this? Because John uses the word 'the' and not 'a' in describing the tree.
Truth: On either side of the river was the tree of life.
Speculation: Since it appears to be one tree due to the word 'the', the tree may arch over the river or even have roots on both side like one of the giant sequoia in Washington... just specualtion, as I said.
We do not have any record of the Tree of Life in the Garden being moved.
Let's speculate, could the tree of life be Christ? How about the Gospel since the river flows from the Lamb?
Twelve manner of fruit, the twelve tribes? How about the Apostles?
Leaves that heal, possible the works of the believers? Faith? Prayer?
Everytime I read that passage I know it is really saying something to us and I pray and I pray but I think I am missing the message. What I don't believe is that it's an actual tree. I think it is a figure of some sort.
Was the tree of Life that was in the Garden of Eden real?
Different tree, same fruit?
Interesting question, Man has now explored either physically or via satellite every inch of the surface of the earth and we have yet to find, "and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
I believe you have eaten of this tree SFIC because when one eats of it he is able to, "eat and live for ever". I believe you have faith and are saved and have eternal life. Did you notice a physical guard as you approached the tree? I know you remeber the taste but do you recall actually eating from the tree?
Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Does this mean Adam and Eve theoretially could have eaten of this tree before the fall? It was just standing in the garden and was not on the list of forbidden tree's. So is it necessary to be a physical tree or possibly an act of obedience as opposed to the act of disobedience which caused the fall?
You notice all the "EAST"? The garden was planted eastward in Eden. Man was drove out, "and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims,".
Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
You ever wonder how the Holy land became known as the Middle East?
What about twelve, twelve tribes, twelve apostles, twelve disciples, twelve fruit???
Lastly I leave you with this quote to ponder;
Jn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
very interesting indeed. Thanks for the thoughts.
I think the "tree of life" is an OT "shadow" of Jesus, maybe not a real tree. It appears that is what is going through your mind also LeBuick. Remember the saying "The OT is Jesus concealed, the NT is Jesus revealed."
Edit: After going back to your OP, I see that you were thinking that.
Very interesting indeed, LeBuick.
Thanks. I have much to ponder.
Interesting, I agree. I have found that to often when we can't understand or see something as being real in the scriptures we want to quickly apply a spiritual or allagorical aspect to the problem verse. You presume the events of Gen in the Garden are allagorical and not literal (at least that is what is sounds like you are advocating). You also seem to presume that we should have found this place already since we can now see every inch of the earth. Problems with this are as follows:
1. The flood destroyed the face of the planet and reshaped much of it characteristics.
2. We can not 'see' every inch of the planet nor have we 'seen' it, most specifically the Ocean bottom at deep levels. Example - What we have are maps that show a general description of the Ocean floors layout. But even then those layout don't differentiate between a coral reef or a sunken ship, just that there is a mound down there. It can't determine what is under 3000 years of silt.
So after the flood, which destroyed the face of the planet, there would be no need for a guardian of Edan since it to would have been destroyed. No flaming sword to be found since there is no tree any longer to guard. And that was the only purpose for the angel to be there, to keep man from eating of the tree.
Secondly I believe the Garden account not to be an allagorical lesson to us be a litteral account of what not only transpired in the Garden but also of what was in the Garden itself. I agree that much of the sybolism we find through out the scriptures are found in the Garden as well but that does not negate the fact that God created it into the Garden environment for them to know and remember as the Lord unfolded His plan for redemption for them and to the ages later on. Much like the Tabernacle and later the Temple. Most everything was symbolic but each piece had a use and function at that moment, even though through Christ we saw more clearly it's allusion through it's function toward the truth regarding future fulfillment. So while the items were apart of what they had and did, these also pointed to a future event or aspects of that event/person. Like wise I place this tree in the same type of catagory.
With regard to 'if Adam and Eve could have theoetically eaten of this tree'? No, they did not, for if they did they would have outlived Methusella, who had never seen much less tasted of the tree but lived to the age of 900 plus years. It is also why God made them leave at that point in sin, so they would eat of it and live. There were so many things to eat and enjoy it appears this tree was mearly one or many. But in either sense no, they did not partake of it, because they would have lived not only to be a 1000 but possibly 4 or 5000 years or longer still. I also think it is dangerous for us to speculate where scripture is silent or does not a certain actaully happened. - at least that is my answer to your question
Something further -
I think the Tree in Genesis was only a copy of the real Tree in Revelation, much like the Temple. The one that man built is only a shadowy copy of the Temple of Heaven, even though God told man to build it but also told man exactly how to build it.This tree in Genesis however was not made by man but God, and also know it's function was like that of the true Tree in Revelation. The tree gave life that man would live 'forever', the word 'forever' here meaning ancient or extensively long but not specifically eternal in the sense of no end. However regardless of if it was eternal life of 'practically' eternal, here is what we know - all 'I]this[/I]'tree did was longevity to life. We do not read that it's leaves healed, or that it bore twelve types of fruit, et.. We only read of that in relation to the Tree in Revelation. This tree seems to be only a shadow of the true Tree of Life we find in Revelation.
The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil however is not to be described as if it were giving a person knowledge from out of it's fruit but to simply 'know' the difference between good and evil. That tree was identified by the law it represented. It was the only law they had to obey by 'not' doing something. Thus it was a constant reminder of what is good and what is not. The only way to do evil or sin in garden was to eat of that tree and at which point one would no longer 'be' good and 'know about' evil, one would 'become' evil or sinfilled (thus changing their nature) and only 'know about' what is good. The tree itself imparted nothing to them yet the tree itself was the means by wheich they came to know or understand.
Lastly, I do believe the Tree in Revelation is a literal tree, but that its make is sybolic to the fulness of God in and toward His creation - however I'm not dogmatic about this position. Can I see it as merely sybolic of Christ, you bet but I think since this is something regarding the New Heavens and the New Earth it might just be something of a mixture of both or something we wont fully understand until that day and time is upon us and Christ reveals all things.
We might differ in what we wrote, but I still say what you set forth is interesting indeed brother :thumbs: