Good vs. Lee's Trees

[aron]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is.

Interesting point. It connects also with John's delineation in Revelations of the difference between the nations touching the tree of life, or being healed by its leaves (22:2b), versus eating the fruit, which is new every month (22:2a). Perhaps that's a corollary of sorts to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We're to have our faculties exercised to discern between good and evil. But to feed on this, i.e. to take our sustenance from it, is not allowed.

Back to the essay at the beginning of the thread. I think that the point is well made that a focus on "life" was made-up as an excuse to avoid noticing the lack of good works. In addition to the verses John quoted, one which has helped me is in the testimony of Peter, regarding the ministry of Jesus. Peter was speaking to the gentiles, and summarizing Jesus' life in a few brief words. Here's how he phrased it: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." (Acts 10:38) The fact that Jesus "went around doing good" made such an impression on Peter shouldn't be lightly dismissed. And WL's stressing of "life" essentially allowed him to do just that.

Additionally, "we don't care for right and wrong, only for life" becomes a cloak for unrighteousness.

And lastly, in a highly-charged charismatic environment, where feelings can become overwhelming, and "experience" or sensory response our primary focus, relying on your feeling of "life" can be an awful trap. Then the Bible itself becomes "dead letters" to you if you can't extract "life" out of it; conversely, anything barely related to the Bible can give "life" if you get sufficiently excited about it. Thus came the equivalent of braying "four legs good, two legs bad" at meetings: we thought if we shouted something loudly enough, for long enough, it would become real. "It's the life, life, life, that makes me want to shout" went the LC song. But we shouted a lot of slogans that were tenuously related to the Bible, if at all. Our focus was not on Jesus Christ, good works, or even "life"; it was on the experience of repetetive shouting.