What is God's Economy?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.

There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

Revelation 22:2 mentions two issues of the TOL: fruit, and leaves. Fruit is assumed to function, but leaves are explicitly listed in function, as healing the nations (i.e. the gentiles, or non-Jews). If you truncate scripture it doesn't strengthen your case. You end up living in a world where only your special verses exist, and the constellations of readings that feed off of them. I was there once.

Of course we all must interpret, and understanding means contextual placement, and placement means subordinating and elevating. But a reading which simplifies to that extent? In which better readings (more scripturally-consistent) are ignored? In which a two-tiered Bible exists, with verses that support your understandings and others which are "low" and "fallen"?

(I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic reading is too close)

StG, if fruit in Revelation 22 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being explicitly spelled out. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 to fruit in context in Rev 22, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

I sympathise with your worldview, having been there once. I just ask you to consider another worldview, in which John 4:24 also exists, in which John 15:10 also exists, in which "leaves" and "nations" also exist besides "fruit". In which obedience means eating, and eating means life, and disobedience means death. That worldview is explicitly spelled out in the pages of the NT text.

If you read Revelation 22:2, the tree of life is not ''just to look at''. But what does the text actually say? All of it, please.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic "this means that" kind of reading is too close to it for my comfort.

StG, if you think the fruit in Revelation 22:2 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being more explicitly spelled out in msg #44. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 in context, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

Sorry I didn't address your specific reference earlier, as you pointed out! I am hoping around today with various business Zoom meetings & communications, personal and other practical items, as well as responding on this forum - hopefully I'm doing at least half of these things effectively!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

But even if your point is true (containing some objective validity), then sitting here typing about the "which got into them" might well be an out-welling of "which got into them" and not any closer to "the leaves for the healing of the nations" - or the fruit! - of Revelation 22:2. And any talk of 'eating' which resolutely (so it seems to me) ignores Jesus' own talk of 'my food' in John 4:24 doesn't seem like having a validity of any real application. It's a talk, a book, a pamphlet.