Return to Answer

Following the OP’s lead, my response explores the symbolism behind the two trees to see whether they may in fact be one and the same tree. In the text, the trees are mentioned together, though the tree of life is first.

The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. – Gen 2:9

At first glance, it does not make sense that they are one and not two separate trees. The problem is simple: How can a tree that leads to death be the same as the tree of life?

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.” – Gen 2:16-17

It is important to note, however, that God did not say the tree gives the knowledge of good and evil, only that it is of the knowledge of good and evil. As the representation of God’s commandment, the knowledge that it gives can only be of that which is good (cf Rom 7:12).

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the means to, not the source of the knowledge of evil. This knowledge did not come from the tree but stemmed from man’s desire for its fruit (Gen 3:6). That desire became sin when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree (cf James 1:14-15). Had the commandment not been given, they would not have known that what they did was wrong (cf Rom 3:20). But because the commandment existed, they realized the evil they had committed, and with this realization came a new experience, that of guilt and shame.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves waist coverings. – Gen 3:7

The point that the tree is not the source of the knowledge of evil is important because it removes a major obstacle to the argument that there is only one tree, namely, that the tree of life cannot be the source of the knowledge of evil. Once this conceptual hurdle is overcome, it is much easier to contemplate the two trees as one.

A key to how the trees can be considered as one lies in the name of the tree of life itself. Life is often viewed in terms of a duality of flesh and spirit, a division that is reflected in the duality of the two trees. The trees reflect the opposing nature of flesh and spirit. While eating is usually a means of sustaining life, here eating does the opposite. The message seems to be: indulge the flesh and you will die; deprive it and you will live. God’s commandment regarding the tree is a lesson on how to live by the spirit (cf Gal 5:16).

In eating the fruit/flesh of the tree, Adam disobeyed God’s command. Through the tree, he came to know evil, death and sin. What he failed to grasp was the spirit of God’s commandment, which is the love of God and obedience to His will (cf Jn 4:34). Had Adam partaken of its spirit, the same tree would be for him the means of righteousness and life.

In my opinion, there is much to be gained by regarding the tree as one. Per this discussion, such a view helps to reconcile the dissonance created by the separation of the trees, of how a tree that God created can be associated with the knowledge of evil. Furthermore, though life can be seen through a divided lens, the oneness of the tree offers a vision of life as God meant it to be, a unity where flesh and spirit are joined as one.

Following the OP’s lead, this response explores the symbolism behind the two trees to see whether they could be considered as one and the same. In the text, the trees are mentioned together, though the tree of life is first.

The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – Gen 2:9

If we start with the premise that there is only one tree of life, then the knowledge of good and evil points to a duality within life. That duality is understood to be of flesh and spirit. Though they are not equivalent, the dichotomy of good/evil parallels and corresponds to the duality of flesh/spirit: good with spirit and flesh with evil. Based on this premise, God’s words to Adam can be reconceived as a command to abstain from the flesh and to live by the spirit.

But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die – Gen 2:17

The moment evil entered the heart of man, that is, when he desired the fruit of the tree, it was as though flesh was sundered from spirit, and the tree of life that had been one was split in two. Separated from the spirit, flesh became subject to the reality of death.

For you are dust, And to dust you shall return – Gen 3:19

It also became a source of shame.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked – Gen 3:7

While there is no definitive way to answer the OP’s question, there is insight to be had by considering the possibility of there being one tree. In pondering the separation of flesh from spirit, I believe it forms a narrative that resonates with and informs our human experience, that of being incomplete and lost, and explains man’s restless longing for a reality beyond what we can touch and see.

It is important to note, however, that God did not say the tree gives the knowledge of good and evil, only that it is of the knowledge of good and evil. As part of God’s creation, the tree itself is good (Gen 1:31). Moreover, as the representation of God’s commandment, the knowledge that it gives can only be of that which is good (cf Rom 7:12).

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the means, not the source of the knowledge of evil. This knowledge did not come from the tree but stemmed from man’s desire for its fruit (Gen 3:6). That desire became sin when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree (cf James 1:14-15). Had the commandment not been given, they would not have known that what they did was wrong (cf Rom 3:20). But because the commandment existed, they realized the evil they had committed, and with this realization came a new experience, that of guilt and shame.

It is important to note, however, that God did not say the tree gives the knowledge of good and evil, only that it is of the knowledge of good and evil. As the representation of God’s commandment, the knowledge that it gives can only be of that which is good (cf Rom 7:12).

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the means to, not the source of the knowledge of evil. This knowledge did not come from the tree but stemmed from man’s desire for its fruit (Gen 3:6). That desire became sin when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree (cf James 1:14-15). Had the commandment not been given, they would not have known that what they did was wrong (cf Rom 3:20). But because the commandment existed, they realized the evil they had committed, and with this realization came a new experience, that of guilt and shame.

In eating the fruit/flesh of the tree, Adam disobeyed God’s command. Through the tree, he came to know evil, death and sin. What he failed to grasp was the spirit of God’s commandment, which is the love of God and obedience to His will. Had Adam partaken of its spirit, the same tree would be for him the means of righteousness and life.

In eating the fruit/flesh of the tree, Adam disobeyed God’s command. Through the tree, he came to know evil, death and sin. What he failed to grasp was the spirit of God’s commandment, which is the love of God and obedience to His will (cf Jn 4:34). Had Adam partaken of its spirit, the same tree would be for him the means of righteousness and life.