Genesis was written to the children of Israel, immediately after their deliverance from Egypt. The Lord is recounting the historical and theological foundations of the covenant people. In doing so, He reminds them of His dealings with the father of the Israelitish nation. The Lord had called Abraham, given him exceedingly great and precious promises, and promised to bless the nations in His seed. In the course of events Abraham is driven down to Egypt by a famine. When in Egypt his life and liveliness is at stake. The Lord intervenes by sending plagues on Pharaoh and his house. Abraham is brought up out of Egypt. God has shown His covenant faithfulness by redeeming Abraham out of Egypt.

In Israel’s history the Exodus from Egypt is the great redemptive act of God. It serves as the typological picture of the redemption that He provides for His people spiritually from the hand of the world, the flesh and the devil. In as much as Israel was to understand the Exodus as a type of the spiritual redemption in Christ, God reminded them of His covenant redemption of Abraham back in Genesis 12:10-20. Israel was to look back at the one God had established this covenant of grace with, and look forward to the seed of Abraham who would fulfill that covenant for His people. Abraham is Israel. Israel comes from the loins of Abraham. Jesus is the true Israel. Jesus comes from the loins of Abraham, as well as from the bosom of the Father. Abraham is a type of Christ. Israel is a type of Christ. Jesus, we are told, went down into Egypt and was brought up again out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15). In Luke’s account of the Transfiguration we learn that Jesus’ death is the true “Exodus” (Luke 9:30-31). In His death and resurrection, the Son of God delivers His people from the bondage to Satan that they found themselves oppressed by since birth. Jesus thus fulfills the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, as well as the typological nature of the nation of Israel. The blessings of Abraham are ours through the One who is Abraham’s Son and Abraham’s Lord. We, who have trusted in Him, are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3) and heirs of the promise.

It is, in fact, the case that Abraham’s descendants (i.e. those who have faith in Christ, see Gal. 3) become heir’s of the “world,” in Him who overcame and received the inheritance of the world from His Father. In Christ, we too become heirs of God and of the world. This is also the explanation of our Lord’s words, “The meek shall inherit the earth,” and Peter’s reference elsewhere to the New Heavens and the New Earth. Believers will come to possess “all things,” as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 6.

A proper understanding of the purpose of the land of Israel opens a new area of research into the significance of the Garden of Eden. Eden was a special place, a physical location (or land), in which Adam was place by God at Creation. It was the prototypical promised land. There is also identification between Eden and the Temple–the place where God is worshiped by man, and dwells with man. The presence of lilies, palm trees, and pomegranates in the very fabric of the Temple are meant to bring the minds of the people of God back to Eden. Phil Ryken notes:

[the Temple] really was like the gates of Paradise. And for many people the way of access was still denied. Unless they were priests they would never see the golden wonders inside. Only the High Priests would enter that most holy place. Yet however limited it was there was access. You see God was opening back up the way to Paradise. You might think of Solomon’s temple as a kind of spiritual portal. The paradise lost could be regained.¹

It must be firmly established in our minds that God was always, throughout the Old Testament era, moving toward the restoration of the blessing of Eden. This in turn ought to move our attention back to the Garden of Eden to find hints as to the land/world connection. This is the case if we begin at the beginning, with the creation of man.

In Genesis 2:7 we learn that God formed man “out of the dust of the ground.” The “ground” is man’s natural environment. [As an aside, there seems to be a relationship between man and the rest of creation as a direct result of his being made out of the ground. On account of man's sin and idolatry (Rom. 1) this manifests itself, in the greatest act of perversion, in man worshiping the creation (i.e. beasts, animals, tress, etc.). This explains why men now exalt the created order above the image bearer of God and above God Himself. The hippie movement of the 60's, environmentalism and all naturalized forms of religion are correct, in one sense, to draw a connection between man and the value of his environment. The fault lies in the subordination of man to the environment and, at the same time, the exaltation of the creation over the Creator Himself. The close relationship between man and beast may be argued, in part, from the fact that both are created on the same day (Gen. 1:24; 26-27), as living, moving and breathing beings. The dissimilarity is to be observed by the fact that man, who alone is made "from the ground," is alone the image bearer of God. We are told that the LORD commanded the earth to bring forth the beasts of the field, but we are not told that they are made from the "ground," nor that they bear the image of their Maker. Add to this that the Hebrew word for "ground" is [Adam]. The very name of the man is the name of the place from which he is taken. Genesis 1:24 is the first time the word [Adam] is mentioned. There it is in regard to the animals. God is said to have created ever living thing that moves “on the ground.”]

There is another reference to the “ground” found in Genesis 2:5 where we read, “…there was no man to work the ‘ground.’” The “ground” is the sphere of blessing and fruitfulness. Eden especially carries this meaning. God intended to create an image bearer who would “work the ‘ground.’” Therefore, God made man from the “dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7). The sphere of blessing that would be the source of fruitfulness is the place that man is taken from. He is taken from the ground and he is created to work the ground. Adam is made to “be fruitful and multiply,” and to “dress and keep” the Garden. Adam is to work the ground and take the Garden out into the world. His task was to turn the world into the Garden.

Sadly, we know how quickly man forfeited his task by sinning against his Creator. In the pronouncement of judgment on man (Gen. 3:17-19) we discover that the sphere of blessing, the very place where man originated, is now cursed and turned into a thorny, barren wilderness that man will have to suffer toilsome labor in order to cultivate the once fruitful land. The “ground” is cursed on account of Adam’s sin. Adam was taken from the ground, the ground was the sphere of God’s blessing man–the environment in which blessings would be uncovered–but Adam rebelled against His Maker. God now curses the very place out of which He made man.

Adam’s sin and the depravity and corruption that he brought on all his descendants manifests itself, in the worst way, in the life of his firstborn son. Cain kills his brother, shedding Abel’s blood on the “ground” that he, incidentally, tilled. When the LORD confronts Cain He makes this astonishing statement: “The voice of your brothers’ blood cries out to Me from the ‘ground.’” Cain had sought to hid the body of his brother in the ground, but God is not limited by time and space, as fallen man wants to think about Him. The blood of Abel “cries out” to God to bring vengance and judgment on Cain.

The author of Hebrews picks up on the idea of Abel’s blood “crying out,” when he–while comparing Old Covenant and New Covenant worship–writes:

For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, ¹⁹ and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.” And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24)

Abel was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. The blood that Abel shed was on account of Christ. Abel, was a “righteous” man, putting his faith and trust in the promise of God for a Savior (Gen. 3:15). Just as Cain, the ‘seed of the serpent’ (1 John 3: ), killed Abel, the ‘seed of the woman,’ so the apostate Jews and unbelieving Romans, the ‘seed of the serpent’ (Matt. 3:7; John 8:44) killed Jesus, the Seed of the woman (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 3:23-38; and Rev. 12:1-5). The blood of Abel cried out from the “ground” for judgment on the ungodly, but the blood of Jesus “speaks better things than that of Abel,” crying out for redemption and salvation. When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, agonizing under the realization of what He would suffer, Luke tells us that “his swear became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” The blood of Jesus fell into the ground in the Garden, and it was shed into the earth at the cross. While, the most important aspect of the blood of Christ is that it is sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven, it nevertheless, falls to the ground, the place of curse that He came into the world to turn to the sphere of blessing.

Returning again to Genesis we soon discover that God pronounces a curse on Cain, further cursing the “ground” that had once yielded its fruit for him. Cain had shed his brothers’ blood into the ground, therefore, God cursed the ground, from which man was taken, to an even greater extent than he had before.

When Lamech, a descendant of Seth, bore a son, he called him “Noah” (lit. ‘rest’), because he believed that, “This one will comfort [lit. give rest to] us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed (Gen. 5:29).” Noah is also a type of Christ. Lamech names his son “rest” because he is believing the promise of God (Gen. 3:15), that He would send a Redeemer to give rest from the burden of sin manifested in God’s curse on the “ground.” Interestingly, Noah does give “typical” rest to the ground by obeying the LORD when he is called to go into the ark with the animals and his family. Man and beast, were brought into the ark. God would actually provide rest through the judgment He brings on the earth with the flood. Rest would be provided through judgment. Likewise, Jesus, the greater than Noah, provides eternal rest through the judgment He endures as the sin-bearer. When Noah left the ark, the “rest” that he typically provided for man is seen in the fact that he is, essentially, the head of humanity on a “new earth.” All of the flood narrative is moving toward the “re-creation” of the earth that had been so polluted by sin. So Christ, does not just redeem His elect, He also purchases the “new heavens and new earth” with His blood. He provides ‘rest’ for “us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed.”

Moving backwards again to the creation account (Gen. 1-2) we learn that there is a “Sabbath,” a day of rest pointing forward to the eschatological rest that Christ would provide for us. It is interesting that Jesus healed many people on the Sabbath, giving rest from physical infirmities. In this way He was showing that He was the one who could give “rest” for the soul (see Matt. 11:25-12: 14 for support of this idea). In the OT the rest that Christ came to give is typified, first with Noah and the “ground” then with Israel and the “land.” Meredith Kline noted:

Another indication of the royal nature of God’s Sabbath rest is afforded when the Bible interprets the entrance of God’s covenant people Israel upon their royal inheritance as the securing of a Sabbath rest. Thus Israel’s occupation of the promised land is described as God’s gift of “rest” (menucah) to them (Deut. 3:20; 12:9; 1 Kings 8:56). In fact, in Hebrews 4, Israel’s dominion rest in Canaan (viewed as forfeited by the generation in the wilderness but typologically achieved through Joshua’s conquest of Canaan) is expressly interpreted in terms of the Creator’s seventh day rest…

The link here would be between typical “Sabbath rest” for Israel in the “land,” and eternal Sabbath rest for the people of God in the “new earth.” Again, the link between the promise that Abraham would be heir of the land and that he would be heir of the world is made through the relationship of Christ to the Sabbath.

The most amazing truth, unfolded in the book of Revelation, is that all the places that were representative of the sphere of God’s blessing (i.e. the Garden, Land and City) become the language of the redeemed church. Man becomes the environment of God’s dwelling, the eschatological sphere of blessing. The covenant promise that God would dwell with His people and that He would dwell in them is typified from Eden to Christ. In the New Covenant the land no longer has the typical significance it once had. Meredith Kline explained how it is that man no longer needs a typical environment for redemption:

At the consummation man leaves behind the external…he has developed through his earthly history…Glorified mankind is depicted as the city of God, the fullness of the new heaven and new earth…Scriptures identification of the eternal city with the glorified church (Rev. 21:9-10) is accompanied by its proclamation of a new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1) and thus intends, of course, no negation of the cosmic dimension of consummated creation…glorified mankind is encorporated into the archetypal Spirit-temple, with which…the cosmos has been intergrated. Hence…it is at once the people-temple and the cosmos-temple, together consummated in the glory temple.

It appears that this interchangeable language between the church as a Garden, Land, City and Temple is founded upon the fact that man is taken from the “earth, land or ground,” the original place of Glory and the dwelling of God with man. It is only through the shed blood of our Savior Jesus Christ that the “ground” is redeemed, and man again enjoys, this time to a much greater degree, the blessings of God on the land. The blessings of Christ on the land are really typical of His blessings on His people. It is image bearers with which God is most concerned. The environment is simply a way of showing the totality and comprehensiveness of His riches in Christ Jesus. In the truest and highest sense, “He makes His blessings flow far as the curse is found.”

]]> http://historiasalutis.com/2009/05/29/a-biblical-theological-perspective-on-the-ground/feed/ 3 http://historiasalutis.com/2009/04/21/the-biblical-theology-of-matthew-henry/ http://historiasalutis.com/2009/04/21/the-biblical-theology-of-matthew-henry/#comments Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:26:28 +0000 Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/04/21/the-biblical-theology-of-matthew-henry/ Read more→]]> When discussions concerning Biblical Theology arise, it is unusual for Matthew Henry to be mentioned as a model of this grand theological discipline. As a young believer I would often rush home from a Worship service and read Matthew Henry on the particular passage preached that Lord’s Day morning. On one occasion I distinctly remember finding a biblical theological gem in regard to Christ sweating great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. Henry noted:

That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse (Gen. 3:19). And therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify and sweeten all our trials to us.

It was not long after reading this that I came across the most satisfactory, biblical-theological interpretation of the crown of thorns, in a short pamphlet by Iain R. K. Paisley. In this short work Paisley made the point that thorns find their significance in the Garden of Eden, where Adam sinned and brought down God’s just wrath on all of humanity. Christ, as the second Adam, bears the curse, due to sin, in His body on the tree. The crown of thorns that were pressed into His brow are a symbol of His role as sin-bearer. I think this is one of the most amazing truths in all the Scriptures. The organic relationship between Genesis 3 and the rest of the Bible is evident in many places, but this is perhaps the most penetrating and impressive of them all. The Seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), promised to our first parents in the Garden, is the One who would bear man’s curse (Gen. 3:17-19). This thought is also found in the writings of Matthew Henry. In his notes on Matthew 27:28-29, Henry explained:

They platted a crown of thorns, and put it upon his hea d. This was to carry on the humour of making him a mock-king; yet, had they intended it only for a reproach, they might have platted a crown of straw, or rushes, but they designed it to be painful to him, and to be literally, what crowns are said to be figuratively, lined with thorns; he that invented this abuse, it is likely, valued himself upon the wit of it; but there was a mystery in it.

[1.] Thorns came in with sin, and were part of the curse that was the product of sin. Therefore Christ, being made a curse for us, binds them as a crown to him; for his sufferings for us were his glory.

[2.] Now he answered to the type of Abraham’s ram that was caught in the thicket, and so offered up instead of Isaac.

[3.] Thorns signify afflictions. These Christ put into a crown; so much did he alter the property of them to them that are his, giving them cause to glory in tribulation, and making it to work for them a weight of glory.

[4.] Christ was crowned with thorns, to show that his kingdom was not of this world, nor the glory of it worldly glory, but is attended here with bonds and afflictions, while the glory of it is to be revealed.

[5.] It was the custom of some heathen nations, to bring their sacrifices to the altars, crowned with garlands; these thorns were the garlands with which this great Sacrifice was crowned.

[6.] these thorns, it is likely, fetched blood from his blessed head, which trickled down his face, like the previous ointment (typifying the blood of Christ with which he consecrated himself) upon the head, which ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard . Thus, when he came to espouse to himself his love, his dove, his undefiled church, his head was filled with dew, and his locks with the drops of the night , Cant. v. 2 .

In regard to Christ being striped naked Henry wrote:

They stripped him, v. 28 . The shame of nakedness came in with sin (Gen. iii. 7 ); and therefore Christ, when he came to satisfy for sin, and take it away, was made naked, and submitted to that shame, that he might prepare for us white raiment, to cover us, Rev. iii. 18 .

]]> http://historiasalutis.com/2009/04/21/the-biblical-theology-of-matthew-henry/feed/ 3 http://historiasalutis.com/2009/03/25/trials-or-temptations-is-god-to-blame/ http://historiasalutis.com/2009/03/25/trials-or-temptations-is-god-to-blame/#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:39:44 +0000 Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/03/25/trials-or-temptations-is-god-to-blame/ Read more→]]> Perhaps you have heard someone try to explain a theology of temptations. Sometimes it seems like the rubics cube of all theological endeavors. On the one hand every good Calvinist knows that God is absolutely sovereign over each and every temptation. At the same time, Calvinists are extremely careful not to lay the temptation itself at the feet of God. How to line these truths up in their proper place is not so easy. But we have Scripture to guide us. James 1:13-15 explicitly says:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

So how are we to explain the dilemma of knowing that God is in absolute control of temptations and yet affirm that He Himself tempts no one? I think the answer is also found in James 1. In the second and third verses of chapter 1, James exhorts us to “count it all joy when we fall into various ‘trials,’ knowing that the ‘testing’ of your faith produces patience.” Note that James does not say in verse 13-15 that God does not “try” or “test” anyone. He says that God does not “tempt” anyone. But the really interesting thing is that the same word used for “try” and “test” is the word our English translators translate “tempt.” Have they given it an improper gloss? I think the translators are correct because the context determines the translation. There is, however, a reason why the same Greek word is used for two different concepts. This, I believe has great implications for explaining the question at hand. In order to deal adequately with this subject we must adopt a biblical theological approach that brings us back to the first trial and temptation. In fact, this is precisely what Geerhardus Vos does in Biblical Theology.

As he came to discuss the pre-lapsarian revelation, and a explanation of the trees of the Garden, Vos noted:

There is a difference between probation and temptation, and yet they appear here as two aspects of the same transaction. The close interweaving reflects itself even in the use of identical words for trying and tempting, both in Hebrew and Greek . We may say that what was from the point of view of God a probation, was made use of by the evil power to inject into it the element of temptation. The difference consists in this, that behind the probation lies a good, behind the temptation an evil, design, but both work with the same material. It is of course necessary to keep God free from tempting anybody with evil intent [cf . James 1:13]. But it is also important to insist upon the probation, as an integral part of the Divine plan with regard to humanity. Even if no tempter had existed, or projected himself into the crisis, even then some form for subjecting man to probation would have been found, though it is impossible for us to surmise what form.1

In short, the devil took the commandment, which was a probation for Adam and Eve, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and turned it into a temptation. God actively orchestrated the trial, thus making the “test” a gift from His hand. And while we know that in his decree for all of the outworking of His plan for His creation He was working through the agency of the evil one, the Scriptures are clear that God Himself cannot be tempted with evil, neither can He tempt anyone. Satan always seeks to take trials and make them into temptations. We must always be on guard. Whether it is in regard to some tragedy in our lives (i.e. cancer, the loss of a loved one, financial difficulties, etc.) or whether it is in regard to the withholding of some particular object (i.e. a job, a car, a home, a companion, an individual who is not our spouse), God is orchestrating the trial to grow us in grace, while Satan is working to lead us into sin. We must not confuse the two. We must remember how the tempter worked in the Garden, in contrast with how our loving heavenly Father worked.

Of course, this finds further significance in the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. At every point in the test that the Father gave the Son, that great serpent of old was there trying to get Him to sin. And yet, we know, that for our sakes He was tempted in every way, yet without sin. We have a Savior who went through the probation, which was made into a temptation, so that He might bring us out into the rich fulfillment of all the blessings that God has promised to those who obey. He did this for us, and, by God’s grace, He has not left us ignorant of Satan’s devises.

1. Vos, Geerhardus Biblical Theology (Grand Rapdis: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948) p. 33

The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience.1

In 21st Century English vernacular, Vos has explained, in the afore mentioned quote, that God worked within the theocratic structure of Israel to show the reality of the theocratic nature of heaven. The laws given to Israel were good, and were God-ordained, but they were unattainable. They were meant to show the people of God, throughout all generations, that God is Holy, and that His rule is holy. But, at the end of the day–or you might say, “At the end of the old age”–they passed away because they were the earthly type of the heavenly reality. This is confirmed constantly throughout the NT when the writer to the Hebrews draws the parallel between the earthly mountain and the heavenly mountain, between the land here and the land there, between the voice shaking the earth and the voice that now also shakes the heavens. There is an antitype for all of the typical elements of the OT, and this is no less true of the theocracy than it was for anything else.

But how does this help us understand the particular case laws given to Israel? Are we simply to dismiss them as irrelevant and unnecessary? Or are we to seek to apply them wholesale to the New Covenant economy in Gentile governments? Here, I think, Vos supplies us with the balanced answer. He noted:

“Eschatological revelation is presented in the language of the Mosaic institutions. The New Testament first transposes it into a new key. Here in the New Testament it is spiritualized. In the Old Testament it is expressed in terms of perfection of the forms of Israel’s theocracy. The holy city is center; offices, organizations, peace, abundance, etc. are there, but this all is to be eternalized in the Messainic era, and will be free of the vicissitudes of the present era. All this is the content of revelation.”2

Notice the way that Vos made use of the words “spiritualized” and “eternalized” in order to describe the theocratic forms of the Old Covenant, as they relate to the Messianic era. Certainly we find, in the book of Hebrews, a clear statement of this in regard to the ceremonial system of Old Covenant worship. It is not that the Old Covenant is supplanted by the New with no relation whatsoever. Rather, it is that the Old was the foundation of typical forms and shadows, and, as Vos noted, “heaven reflected itself on Israel” in order that these types might reflect something of the heavenly antitypes.

But, I want to point out that this is also true with regard to the civil system of theocratic Israel. How does the New Testament use the civil legislation given to Israel? In brief, it “spiritualizes” them so that they are seen to be “eternailzed in the Messianic era.” This can be demonstarted from one brief illustration–Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, and 24:7. This oft repeated verse, in its theocratic setting, had reference to stoning the idolatrous, the false witness, and the fornicator.

1 Corinthians 5:13 is the New Covenant setting, in which this Old Covenant sanction now has reference to excommunicating the impenitent adulterer. The penal legislation is “spiritualized” with regard to the New Covenant church. Certainly the discipline excercised by the apostle Paul in this case had an “eternalizing” principle. Jesus Himself had told the apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.” We know that God in His mercy and grace brought the man of 1 Corinthians 5 to repentance, so that he was restored to communion with the saints–as is evident from 2 Corinthians.  But we must take the greatest of care in understanding the spiritualizing principle of the theocratic system. God has given us examples, such as Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7 in 1 Corinthians 5:13, so that we might realize the applicability of the Old Covenant civil law, without missing its eschatological spirituality.

1. Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001) pp. 117-118

2. Ibid., p. 118

]]> http://historiasalutis.com/2009/03/03/the-theocratic-sanctions-in-redemptive-history/feed/ 5 http://historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/ http://historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/#comments Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:16:46 +0000 Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/ Read more→]]> There has been no shortage of writing on the nature of the two trees in the center of the Garden of Eden. From the earliest time in New Testament church history, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life have been understood to be fundamental elements of human history. While there is no shortage of writing about these trees there is, nevertheless, much disagreement as to their precise purpose in Paradise. There is, perhaps, no more helpful treatment on the trees of the Garden than that found in Geerhardus Vos’ Biblical Theology.

When he came to treat the subject of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Vos explained that the tree served a twofold purpose. First, it was meant to be a probation–to test Adam’s obedience to his Creator. Satan would turn the test into a temptation thus making it a temporary probation. Second, it was meant to give Adam the knowledge of Good and Evil. If Adam obeyed he would learn the evil from the prospect, and in contrast to, having chosen the good. If he disobeyed, he would have learned the evil by experience and would know the good, remembering what he once was, in contrast with having chosen the evil. Vos explained this in the following manner:

To attain to a knowledge of good and evil is not necessarily an undesirable and culpable thing. It could happen in a good way, in case man stood in probation, no less than in an evil way, in case man fell. The name is neutral as to its import. That this is so frequently overlooked is due to the prohibitive form which the probation-test assumed. Because man was forbidden to eat of the tree associated with the knowledge of good and evil, it has been rashly assumed that the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden him. Obviously there is in this a confusion of thought. The prohibitive form of the test has quite a different cause, as will be presently shown.

If now we inquire how the maturity designated as ‘knowledge of good and evil’ was to be attained, either in a desirable or in an undesirable sense, regard must be had first of all to the exact form of the phrase in Hebrew. The phrase is not ‘knowledge of the good and the evil’. It reads, literally translated: ‘knowledge of good-and-evil’, i.e., of good and evil as correlated, mutually conditioned conceptions. Man was to attain something he had not attained before. He was to learn the good in its clear opposition to the evil, and the evil in its clear opposition to the good. Thus it will become plain how he could attain to this by taking either fork of the probation-choice. Had he stood, then the contrast between good and evil would have been vividly present to his mind: the good and evil he would have known from the new illumination his mind would have received through the crisis of temptation in which the two collided. On the other hand, had he fallen, then the contrast of evil with good would have even more vividly impressed itself upon him, because the remembered experience of choosing the evil and the continuous experience of doing the evil, in contrast with his memory of the good, would have shown most sharply how different the two are. The perception of difference in which the maturity consisted related to the one pivotal point, whether man would make his choice for the sake of God and of God alone…

From the true conception of the purpose of the tree we must distinguish the interpretation placed upon it by the tempter according to Gen. 3.5. This carries a twofold implication: first that the tree has in itself, magically, the power of conferring knowledge of good and evil. This lowers the plane of the whole transaction from the religious and moral to the pagan-magical sphere. And secondly, Satan explains the prohibition from the motive of envy. … Again, the divine statement in Gen. 3.22 alludes to this deceitful representation of the tempter. It is ironical.¹

It is interesting to note that it was Satan’s purpose to lead man to believe that the tree had in itself a magical power of conferring knowledge of good and evil. Vos elsewhere noted, as did Calvin, that the two tress in the midst of the Garden were sacramental. It is important to see that Satan was, from the beginning, trying to get man to misunderstand the nature of a sacrament, and to look to them as the thing in itself, working, as it were, ex opere operato.

Adam did indeed attain to the knowledge of good and evil, but, as Vos noted, he attained it from the standpoint of becoming evil and remembering the good in contrast to the evil he performed. If we make Genesis 1-3 our starting point, and then consider all the occasions in which man is called to make judgments (i.e. to decided between good and evil) we soon discover that he will always choose the evil over the good in his natural state.

When the LORD comes to assess Israel’s actions through the prophet Jeremiah this is what He concludes: ” For My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge (Jeremiah 4:22).” A little later the Lord says of Israel, “they proceed from evil to evil, And they do not know Me,” says the LORD.” It is knowledge of the LORD that men lack. This knowledge is the knowledge of good. There are many similar verses in the prophets, in which the LORD brings the charge that men, including His people Israel, had not learned how to do good. Of course, we know that this is because most of the visible church did not have regenerate hearts. We see the culmination of their evil ways as we approach the second tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, namely, the cross on which our Lord Jesus died in our place.

On the night when our Lord was betrayed and brought before human judges, He was struck by one of the soldiers. Explaining that He always taught openly, and that He never said anything in secret, He was vindicated His uprightness. To the soldier that struck Him, Jesus replied, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if good, why do you strike Me (John 18:23)?”

The knowledge of good and evil is always before us, and, it is evident, natural men will inevitably and irrationally choose evil each and every time they make a decision. We must understand that Jesus is the Good, just as He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Everything that involves Jesus involves the Good and the True. But this is–more than anything else–what causes the evil in man’s heart to surface. There is no greater example of this than at the cross.

The cross is the “tree” (as spoken of by Peter in 1 Peter 2: ) of the knowledge of good and evil. At Calvary the Jews and Romans (representative of all men) make the ultimate decision for evil. In the face of there cry, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” the Divine judge shows to a world blinded by evil, His verdict on that evil. But it is there that the One who did no evil was made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The words of Joseph never rang so loudly, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” The One who hung on the tree restores the knowledge of the Good that Adam lost by choosing the evil for all those who trust in Him. God has chosen to reverse, in His image bearers, all that Adam lost by means of the One who hung on this tree, even our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other tree that so fully manifests the knowledge of good and evil. This is the final probation. What we do with God’s command concerning this tree is the only thing that matters now.

¹Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology (1948), pp. 27-33.

photo by garry61