I agree but that argument from silence works both ways. There is nothing to indicate either of them would have eaten from the tree of life. It's a bit of a stretch but I might, on a more "devil's advocate" day, argue there is some smidgeon of evidence to say they would not have eaten from the tree of life: We have no idea how much time passed between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:6 but we do know some period of time had transpired because Adam had names all the animals and the angelic rebellion had ensued during that interim. We know Adam and Eve had not eaten during that period of time because God would not have been able to say Genesis 3:22. So.... speculatively, we could argue Adam would not have eaten because he had not eaten even though he had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Whether or not that's a valid argument, I do think their individual and mutual neglect of the tree of life is important because there is context. The story is always one of eating one thing and not another;
knowingly eating what brings death instead of what brings life (while in a good and sinless undeceived state).
Yes, but Adam and Eve were made mortal. That means they were going to die any way. The tree of life might make them live forever, but that has nothing to do with the way they were made. Yes, God may have wanted them to eat from the tree of life the elect doing so was an inevitability but that has nothing to do with the way they were created. They were created to die. If Hebrews 9:27 is applicable, then they were created to die once (not twice or thrice) and then face judgment (and I've already covered the various options therein). The death that is the penalty of sin is eternal destruction. The death that occurs absent the penalty of sin is eternal life. Both die. Death is necessarily entailed either way. The only way anyone can have immortality, or eternal life, is to eat the fruit of the tree of life and that fruit just so happens to
entail death, resurrection, and transformation in Jesus! Either way a person dies. There is no coming to the Father but through Jesus (the tree of life). There is no "by Jesus" other than through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. There is no resurrection without death (Enoch is the exception to the rule, not the rule), and there is no death without first having lived.
A person lives, then dies, and then - if he has eating of the tree of life - he is resurrected incorruptibly and immortally to eternal life.
The alternative is..... a person lives and then - if he has eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - from which all have eaten, he is resurrected but NOT raised incorruptibly and immortally. He gets tossed in the fiery lake for eternal torturous death atop death atop death (dead physically, dead sinfully, and dead fiery lake-ally
.
Either way it was appointed for man to die once. For all we know the tree of life might have killed Adam and then he'd have been raised for his obedience! Sheer speculation, I know.
Well, it's important to main consistent context. God made Adam mortal and called it good. That implies physical death is NOT a penalty. I, for one, although I will miss my current life, my wife and children, the adventures God has for me here, I look forward to the day when I see and know as I am seen and am known, to no longer have the aches and pains inherent in this life. Death is a good thing, and it would be an even better thing had I never sinned.
So physical death in a good, unashamed, sinless, in-Christ state is a blessing, not a penalty. Likewise, although I and everyone else has experienced the temporal penalties of sin which resulted in being dead in sin, because some of us have eaten from the tree of life we will be raised from death so, again, physical death is a blessing - a release from the deadly effects of sin.
Being dead in sin is not identical to physical death. Prior to out coming to Christ we were all dead in sin but still physically alive. Sin did not physically kill anyone. There are several different kinds of death in scripture (physically dead, dead in sin, dead in Christ, etc.). To use the word "death" in a way that does not accurately discriminate between these very different types of death is a mistake.
Not explicitly. However, in most cases context is informative, and the newer revelation informs us in ways the older revelation did not. Even though the scriptures always implied a life existed after death, that was not the prevailing view in Judaism. This disparity is one of the many examples of what I mean when I say, "
Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was often incorrect."
AND..... it requires death. Two deaths, in fact (maybe three depending on how one looks at it).
- Dead physically.
- Dead in Christ.
- Dead to sin.
In flesh alone death is a penalty. In Christ, death is a blessing, not a penalty. Adam and Eve had the opportunity to choose a good, unashamed, sinless death in the tree of life, the perfect sacrifice foreknown before Adam and Eve ever drew breath and they chose not to do so. It was not because they were made sinful.
I trust you'll understand, but the discussion is getting afield of the op and that's not how I like to do threads. The op argues the doctrine of the "
fall" is the "
Mother of all sins," further asserting it is the origin of sin. That is absurd. The op builds its dissent on the position God made A&E sinful. That too is absurd, blatantly contrary to scripture. Scripture explicitly tells us Adam and Eve were made good, unashamed, sinless, and mortal and Gen. 1:31 implies their mortality was a good thing, not sinful.
