Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."
Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?
But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.
|
Will be curious to know if/what the Lord says!
Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
From God saying this, it seems to me that every tree was indeed good for food....if God Himself is saying they can eat from them all. He wouldn't tell anyone to eat from a tree that wasn't good for food!
Good for food....fit for food.....all of them mean you can eat it. God would never tell one of His children that something poisonous is good or fit for food and can be eaten.
Regarding the pleasing to look at versus good for food, Eve saw that the TOTKOGAE was both. The Bible doesn't record that that view of hers was wrong.
I won't push back too hard on the ingesting thing. I agree it does matter what we take into ourselves, although I usually think of it in terms of what we hear, read, watch, etc. if you want to take the metaphorical approach. I'm not saying it isn't important in general, but as far as everything the Bible says about this story in particular, including in Romans, the emphasis is consistently on the act, the offense, the disobedience, the sin, rather than the eating, the ingesting, the "taking in", etc. The main reason I'm not totally acquiescing here is because once we say there was anything wrong with the fruit of the TOTKOGAE is the nanosecond we give the grounds for the abusive teachings of "good is death/poison" or "knowledge is death/poison", etc. I know the potential for abuse of a teaching doesn't negate a teaching, but when the verses aren't there to back up that the ingesting of the fruit (aside from disobedience) was a problem, then we've got an unbiblical teaching that turns into an abusive teaching. And that riles me up!