THE THREE TREES IN EDEN
Cecil Hook

Usually we speak of the two trees in the Garden of Eden, but there were three kinds of trees there. Even though you may be more convinced than I am that they were literal trees, I think that you will agree that they had symbolic meanings. Let’s look for the messages that they convey.

“And out of the ground the Lord God made 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 the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9). We will consider them in order.

1. There was the tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food. We will suppose that the inhabitants of the garden could have eaten of that tree for bodily sustenance without eating of either of the other two trees. Even though food and aesthetic enjoyment are needful and are amoral in nature, such a diet of “bread alone” would only serve the temporary, earthly needs of man. It would be a nonspiritual existence holding no hope or promise. Countless millions of our kind have eaten only of that tree, and they have died without hope.

There was the tree of life in the middle of the garden. Its centrality speaks of both its importance and its availability. Adam and Eve had unhindered fellowship with God who was their source of life. As long as they desired, they could sustain that relationship. Eating of that tree, they would never die —never be separated from their life-giver and sustainer.

The first pair did not merit or earn such a blessing. It was the grace of life, a gift bestowed by God upon them in acceptance of them as his own creatures. It was the same grace that is bestowed upon us through Christ when we become and live as sons of God. It is a living relationship in fellowship with our Creator.

Those who continue to partake of that spiritual tree through Christ will not be surprised to find its perpetuated blessing in the eternal garden of God, for “To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7).

3. Then there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why would it be forbidden and so deadly? Did God want his creatures to be ignorant of right and wrong? When God gave them permission to eat of the other trees and forbade their eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he gave them some knowledge of good and evil then and there. That prohibition was a law which they knew and understood. What, then, does this tree symbolize?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the antithesis of the tree of life. One sustained life; the other brought death. If the tree of life represented the grace of God, then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must depict something contrary to grace. In his book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden, RickJoynor rightly concludes that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the law. We can propose only two possible means for our justification —grace or law. It seems that the eating of one tree pictures the acceptance of grace and the eating of the other illustrates man’s inclination to seek greater knowledge of law in order to attain, to merit, or to achieve his right standing before God through it. In all ages man’s efforts in that area have resulted in total failure.

Laws were given to define sin: “Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin” (Rom. 7:7). Law gives us the knowledge of good and evil. Paul says that what he thought would bring life to him brought death. “The power of sin is the law,” Paul wrote (1 Cor. 15:56). Sin has a venomous sting which brings death. Law brings death, for no one can keep law perfectly, and law offers no promise of life. If a person could live without violating law, he or she would only be maintaining original innocence rather than receiving life from the law. Man is dependent wholly on grace.

We desire to be like God in discerning law so we may attain God-likeness through keeping it. The tree of legal righteousness appears to be good spiritual food, producing righteous people who are a delight to look upon, making us wise scholars (lawyers!) of the word. When one partakes, however, his eyes are opened to his own ignorance, nakedness, and vulnerability. How sad it is that, instead of confessing how bare we are and accepting grace, we try to cover ourselves with insecure works of righteousness —flimsy, scratchy, and inadequate as our fig leaves prove to be.

Although Paul was not writing about the three trees in Eden, his letter to the Romans could serve as a commentary about those trees. There were the Gentiles trying to live by the tree of earthly sustenance, the Jews and Judaizers who trusted in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the faithful who trust in the grace and imputed righteousness of the tree of life. In typical manner, an animal was killed to hide Adam’s shame. A Lamb gave his life to cover ours. He is that tree of life who gives us unhindered fellowship with God.

Those three trees are still in our garden of life. We may eat freely of the first two, but it will be fatal if we let the serpent beguile us so that we partake of the third tree. —1350 Huisache, New Braunfels, Tx 78130