Adam and Eve before the Fall

The following questions were asked on a Social Media platform:

Some questions from Genesis 3:22 and 23.

1. 1. If Adam and his wife did not eat the fruit, would they die?
   2. After the fruit meal, why did they not eat the fruit of the tree of life?
   3. Before God punished them, why didn’t the Serpent encourage them to eat the fruit of the tree of life

We endeavour to supply answers as follows:

1. 1. If Adam and his wife did not eat the fruit, would they die?

This is one of those “What if?” questions, which it is not wise to dogmatise upon, but is interesting to consider.  We are told very plainly in the New Testament, that death came into the world as a consequence of sin:

“… as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

As far as the Scriptures themselves are concerned, Adam did sin, the sentence of death was passed, and we know what followed – but we are not told what might have been under different circumstances, or whether death could have entered the world in a different way in those circumstances.  The question is, would death at any point have come into the world if the first human pair had not eaten of the proscribed fruit?  Brother John Thomas gives his thoughts on this question both in Elpis Israel, and also in a further article appearing in “The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come”, July 1885, entitled “Our Terrestrial System before the Fall”.  In both of these, he makes the suggestion, that although there was no active process of decay in operation within Adam or Eve before the fall as there is at present, because the animal body with which they were created was not designed for an endless existence without a change, it would eventually wear out. Thus, in Elpis Israel, speaking of the hypothesis “if they had not sinned they would nevertheless have died”, we read:

“It is probable they would after a long time, if no further change had been operated upon their nature.  But the Tree of Life seems to have been provided for the purpose of this change being effected, through the eating of it’s fruit, if they had proved themselves worthy of the favour” (Page 72).

And in Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall, he wrote:

“Adam and Eve, and all the other animals born of the earth with themselves, would have died and gone to corruption, if there had been no transgression, provided that there had been no further interference with the physical system than Moses records in his history of the Six Days”.

The suggestion is then, that the “animal body” with which Man was created, would only be capable of existing in its pristine condition for a certain period.  It was not designed for eternity and would eventually wear out – a very different thing to saying that Adam was created as a decaying creature, with an active principle of corruption as part of his physical make-up.  But it ought to be pointed out that in any case this is more of an academic consideration than anything else – in actual fact, it could never happen!  In Eden, Adam and Eve had only two options placed before them – neither of which would permit the supposed natural dissolution of their animal nature into corruption.  Either they would remain faithful, and after a period of probation be granted immortality, or they would disobey, and be placed under the sentence of death.  Under this consideration therefore, the issue of what may, or may not have happened had there been either no sin, or no transformation into immortality, is really a non-question, for this option could never have taken place.  Indeed, Bro Thomas recognises this in the quotations above; suggesting Adam’s body could wear out in the absence of sin, if it had not been changed to Immortality by God.  Again, in 1852, he wrote concerning the nature of animals, “These did not sin, yet they returned to dust whence they came.  So probably would Adam, if he had been left to the ordinary course of things as they were.  But he would not have returned to dust if he had continued obedient” (Tempter and Tempted, The Herald of the Kingdom, 1852).

The present writer’s thoughts are that whilst Bro. Thomas’ suggestion sounds plausible, and does not contradict the BASF, there is another possibility.  As Adam and Eve were created in a “very good” state, they would remain in such condition, unless the appearance of sin would change things, as it duly did.  It is quite possible therefore, that the bodies of Adam and Eve, being sustained by the “breath of life” (Gen 2:7) and having no active principle of corruption (i.e. mortality) within them, could have maintained an undying existence indefinitely.  This is not to say that they were immortal, but that they would live for however long the Lord wished them to before the rewarding of faithfulness, with the possibility of death occurring at any point, consequent to the introduction of sin.  We have seen that the possibility of Adam’s death because of his body eventually wearing out was not an option anyway, and this suggestion would at least allow for a probationary period of any length of time prior to the reward of immortality.

But on this particular matter, the Scriptures do not speak specifically, and therefore it is unwise to dogmatise.  What the Scriptures do state is that Adam became a dying creature subsequent to, and because of his action of sin; and with that we must be content.

1. 2. After the fruit meal, why did they not eat the fruit of the tree of life?

According to the Genesis record, the command was given:

“… of every tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17).

It is observed that there was no such prohibition against eating of the Tree of Life, which leads some to assume that Adam and Eve did have free access to that tree, and partook of it regularly in order to sustain them.  Then, it is reasoned, that having access to that tree removed, they would begin to die and experience the travail that comes from a mortal existence (see for instance the book “The Divine Plan – A Reappraisal of some Christadelphian Traditions” by CE Cave and J Adey).

Although it does not in itself prove our case, it should be pointed out that this is not a new idea by any means: it has been around for many years, and is a theory which Christadelphians have long resisted.  In 1896, Bro Roberts spoke of it, calling it: “a plausible theory to the effect that we do not inherit death from Adam by any physical law, but merely by denial of access to the tree of life; that the sentence of death took no effect on Adam’s body, and therefore not in ours: that, in fact, we are the “very good” and uncursed Adamic nature … that our nature is not an unclean and sinful nature: that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh … it is the old doctrine of Renunciationism in a new form.  It is worse than Renunciationism … while apparently an innocuous and harmless theory, it fatally corrupts and upsets and perverts the truth at its very threshold …” (The Christadelphian, July 1896).

 These are strong words, even for Brother Roberts’ Day!  But when we carefully consider the logic of his reasoning, these words are fully justified.  For, if Adam was created subject to decay already, then the punishment for sin would not be the imposition of death, but merely the exclusion from a particular life-sustaining fruit.  This would then mean that the nature of man is not in itself affected, as the Scriptures teach, but is still in the same “very good” state in which it was first formed.  And this would seriously undermine our understanding of how we are affected by Adam’s sin, for rather than inheriting a defiled, condemned nature, as Christadelphians originally believed (and as the Bible teaches), the only way in which we can be under condemnation is in some “legal” sense: because of Adam’s sin, we have no entitlement to the tree!  And this would nullify our understanding of the Sacrifice of Christ, for he would not need to overcome the diabolos in our sinful nature (Heb 2:14), and so overcome death itself, to stand before God as our representative (Heb 9:24).  Rather, as our nature itself would not be the problem, he must have died as some kind of substitute, to suffer our punishment so that we might walk free.  And these beliefs are held in great sincerity – by many of the churches around us.  So then, although it may seem to be an “innocuous” suggestion, as Bro. Roberts wrote, it has serious ramifications which negates the whole of Scripture teaching concerning the Atonement.

What then, do the Scriptures teach?  It is true that the Lord gave permission for Adam to eat “of every tree of the garden”, but nowhere in Scripture are we told Adam actually ate from the Tree of Life.  At best, this can be no more than an inference.  Permission was given, but nowhere are we told that Adam actually did eat from every single tree which existed in the garden.  And in any case, the expression “of every tree”, does not mean any tree without exception – it did not include the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Lord said “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it …” (Gen 2:16,17).  When Adam was given permission to eat “of every tree”, it is evident that this meant every tree which was placed in the garden for food, not every tree which existed – the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not formed for food, and was not to be so used.

But the Tree of Life was not formed for Adam to feed upon either!  This is clear from Gen 2:9, where a distinction is made between trees for food, and those other two unique trees:

“And out of the ground made Yahweh Elohim 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”.

The Lord made trees for food, and “the Tree of Life also”, that is, in addition to, and distinct from the other trees.  Thus, God allowed Adam to eat of any food-bearing tree, but this did not include the Tree of Life, or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which were in different categories of their own.

We read again of the Tree of Life in Gen 3:22-23,  following the transgression of our first parents, and the subsequent covering of their nakedness: “And Yahweh Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore Yahweh Elohim sent him forth from the Garden of Eden …”.  Here, the Tree is spoken of as giving everlasting life, and clearly if the Tree of Life gave immortality, then Adam couldn’t have eaten from it, or else he would still be alive!  And in addition to this, the phrase “lest he … take also of the tree of life” is used, which would also imply that he hadn’t previously eaten of the tree.

When we consider the literal Tree in Eden, every indication suggests that its existence was ready for the rewarding of man’s faithfulness (had he obeyed the Divine Command), with the bestowal of Immortality.  Indeed, it’s very name, (the “Tree of Lives”, as it could be better rendered) is suggestive of this, it would give life to all those who would partake of it.  In this, it stands as a great contrast to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which would bring death to those who transgressed the command in partaking of it.  How appropriate for there to be a Tree which would give life consequent to obedience, and a Tree which would be the cause of death to those who transgressed!

This appears to be the reasoning of Bro. Thomas, for speaking of the Tree of Life in Elpis Israel, he wrote:

“Its fruit, however, was of a quality entirely opposite to that of which they had eaten.  Both trees bore good fruit; but that of the Tree of Life had the quality of perpetuating the living existence of the eater for ever … It is probable that, had he (i.e. Adam) been obedient to the law of the Tree of Knowledge, he would have been permitted to eat of the Tree of life, after he had fulfilled his destiny as an animal man; and, instead of dying away into dust, have been “changed in the twinkling of an eye” (Elpis Isael, p70).

What this means, is that Adam and Eve had immortality to look forward to, had they remained obedient. But following the Fall, access to the Tree was barred, and the sinful pair were thrust out from its presence.  We can only begin to imagine how Adam and Eve must have felt outside of the Paradise in Eden, knowing they were to lead a life of travail and suffering, as dying they would surely die.  At one time, they were faced with the prospect of being like the Elohim in nature – if they had obeyed – but now all was vanity as they were denied access to the Tree of Life, and condemned to return to the ground from whence they came.

But the question is, Following the eating of the forbidden fruit, why couldn’t Adam and Eve simply eat from the Tree of Life which was also in the midst of the garden?  The assumption is that it was already yielding fruit – which the record does not say.  Our suggestion is that as trees produce fruit according to the seasons, it was not the season for this fruit grow (in fact, Revelation 22 speaks of a wood of life in this way).  It would only be needed in the event of a successful period of trial – before that event, this fruit would not be needed, and so would not be provided.  If the tree were already bearing fruit that could confer immortality, one would assume that the first thing to do would be to exclude the sinful pair from it immediately – whereas in the Genesis record, this was done last.

1. 3. Before God punished them, why didn’t the Serpent encourage them to eat the fruit of the tree of life

Again, it is an assumption that the tree was bearing fruit at the time.  The record gives no reason to suppose that it was.  There was evidently a period of time between eating of the forbidden tree, and the sentencing of death.  Adam and Eve had time to make themselves aprons of fig trees: they surely would have had time to immediately go to, and partake of the Tree of Life, had it been in fruit.

But there is an antitypical Tree of Life which those who overcome will be allowed to eat from!  The Lord, in His Kindness and Mercy ordained a “Way” back to the Tree, which was preserved by the Cherubim, and Flaming Sword, placed at the entrance to the garden (Gen 3:24).  And, even before their expulsion from Eden, both Adam and Eve were taught the need for Sacrifice in order to provide a covering (atonement) for sin, a practice they were to continue at the entrance to the Way, as we learn from the opening verses of Gen 4.

This situation is aptly described in Proverbs thus: “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life” (Prov 13:12).  Despite the sickness of heart Adam would experience because of the condemnation of death, he nevertheless had a hope of life.  As He stood at the entrance to the Garden (which was also the place where “the Way of the Tree of Life” began), to offer his Sacrifice, it is quite possible that he would be able to look beyond the sword of fire, wielded by the Cherubim of Glory, along “the Way”, to the Tree in the distance.  Indeed, the stated purpose of the Cherubim to “keep”, or “preserve” the way (Gen 3:24) would suggest this.  The record states that it wasn’t simply the entrance to the way, but the way itself, which was preserved.  The features of the Cherubim would teach him what he must become, being a depiction of the glorified Body of Christ (Ezek 1).  And the fiery sword, being the means by which the Way was preserved, would teach that he, as all who seek “glory and honour and immortality” (Rom 2:7) have the duty to preserve the Way of God (Ps 119:33-35, cont Gen 6:12) by the effective use of the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph 6:17): cutting down the high things which exalt themselves against the knowledge of the Truth (2 Cor 10:5).  And being a Fiery sword, as well as speaking of the bright flame of the Word, it would also teach him that keeping the true Way is often accompanied with a fiery trial (1Pet 4:12) of affliction.

And so as Adam gazed past these things, along the “Way” to the Tree which was “afar off” (Cp. Heb 11:13), in the midst of the Garden, he would be able to look beyond his sentence of death, and all that it entailed, past the depiction of what he must do to be saved, to the glory which lay ahead.  And this place itself, being a place of Sacrifice, would teach that the means to access the things that this tree offered would ultimately be provided by the One who had the power to overcome, through death, even the Lord Jesus Christ.

Such is the situation as it appears to us: we invite reader’s comments!

Christopher Maddocks