We now need to examine the natural environment of the first created pair. We read in Genesis 2:8, “The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had created.” Can we imagine the beauty and fertility of this garden? We often gaze upon beautiful landscapes, and they please and satisfy the eye until some decaying branch, some withered leaf, some stray bramble or weed causes us to realize that after all, the beauty is marred by imperfections. We admire the wonderful beauty of the rose and delight in its fragrance, but alas, its thorn causes us pain. How different was this garden. No thorns, no thistles, brambles, briars or noxious weeds. No dead or dying trees and shrubs, but every bit of vegetation fresh, lovely, normal, perfect. Our eyes have never gazed upon the natural world free from abnormal conditions.
Our attention is particularly drawn to the trees of this garden, of which there seem to be three distinct kinds, in respect to the purpose of God in their creation; for we read in verse 9 that the Lord God made “to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight,” i.e., shade trees-indicating that God delights to gratify the perception of beauty with which He has endowed man-and trees “good for food,” i.e., fruit and nut trees which furnished man all that he needed for physical sustenance; and “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Evidently these last named trees have some other use than to furnish food for the body or emotional satisfaction to the soul of man. We may ask then, “For what purpose were they placed there?”
In answering this question notice that the tree of life is first mentioned and described as occupying the most conspicuous place in the garden-“in the midst of the garden.” The other tree, “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” evidently occupied a less exalted position, as if the Creator had designed that the tree of life in its prominence should render the other less conspicuous. All this is very suggestive.
We also notice that God had given free permission to eat of the tree of life but had strictly forbidden them to partake of the other tree and had told them what the penalty of disobedience would be. (See Gen. 2:16-17.) Why the permission in one case and the prohibition in the other?
Is it not probable that the same Lord God who gave to Moses the plan of that wonderful tabernacle in the wilderness, every appointment of which was a symbol of Eternal Truth, and who instituted that elaborate system of sacrificial offerings, every detail of which spoke of Him in connection with His redeeming work at Calvary, should even here at the very beginning of human history teach by symbol the truths which He wished them to know?
Can we not believe that He, who should later break bread prepared by human hands and use the same to symbolize His broken body, and who should take wine pressed from the grapes by human feet to symbolize His shed blood, should here in the Garden of Eden, before His incarnation, select the tree in the midst of the garden as a symbol of God’s Uncreated Life stored in Himself for human beings? And could not our first parents with their wonderful powers of spirit and mind-powers fresh from the creative hand of God-have understood this symbol sufficiently to penetrate the same and choose the Life which was actually manifested in the glorious One who talked with them in the garden? Who can doubt it? Yet we plainly see that as yet they had not partaken of this tree. In other words, they had not made their choice in reference to Uncreated Life, or Eternal Life as it is more frequently termed; for had they eaten of the tree of life, then they would have received the Life of God which was for them in the Eternal Son, through simple faith. Thus immediately they would have become children of God, and through the continual appropriation of the provision for their transformation, eventually they would have become “conformed to the image of the Eternal Son.”
Impress upon the class that the first Adam was not a son of God. Biologically we see why not. He did not possess the same kind of life. There is a mistaken idea that Redemption restores man to the unfallen plane of the First Adam. Sad indeed were this the case, for we should know nothing of sonship. Redemption places us upon the plane that Adam and Eve might have known, i.e., sonship through the Eternal Son, had they used their power of choice Godward. Notice also that if Adam and Eve had become children of God by choosing Eternal Life-the Uncreated Life of God in the Eternal Son-they could not have transmitted this Life to their children. They would have transmitted sinless human life with holy tendencies, but their children would have had to use their power of choice in reference to Uncreated Life, individually-for Uncreated Life is always a gift from God.
As God had created man with the capacity for Life on a higher plane, and the power to choose it, and had endowed him with moral perception of a high order, we see that the environment of man must include provision for the use of these exalted powers; hence the two trees of Paradise which we have been considering.
Much time might be spent in studying the various details of the description of this wonderful “garden of God,” but we will hastily summarize in saying that the Lord God had placed the first created pair amid ideal surroundings, had empowered them to exercise dominion over the earthly creation (Gen. 1:28), and had provided everything that they needed for their powers of spirit, soul and body. Well might Milton exclaim, “O earth, how like to heaven!”
Home | First | Prev | Next