(1) "Had they already partaken of the tree of life prior to their disobedience? Probably" - I find it rather hard to agree with. From God's concern about Adam's future after his fall and His follow-up actions in preventing Adam from partaking of the tree of life we can at least infer that the effects of partaking from the two trees are not mutually-excluding, that is, it is possible to have the effect of partaking of the bad tree (being separated from God and being aware of good and evil) and at the same time to have the effect of partaking of the good

(2) tree (being immortal). Thus, if Adam had already partaken of the tree of life prior to partaking of the tree of knowledge, then he would've already been immortal and it would've already been "too late" for God to do anything about it.

@brilliant: "if Adam had already partaken of the tree of life . . . then he would've already been immortal," you said. Not necessarily. If we assume the ONLY function of the tree of life was to convey immortality, then you may be correct. If, OTOH, we assume the tree of life had other special attributes, then you might be incorrect. Life to our first parents involved evolution (not macro-evolution!) of their spiritual, physical, emotional, aesthetic lives. IOW, the "tree of life" as metaphor, if you will, conferred blessings on two souls who were ALREADY immortal because they were without sin.

"If we assume the ONLY function of the tree of life was to convey immortality, then you may be correct. If, OTOH, we assume the tree of life had other special attributes, then you might be incorrect" - Even if it had other special attributes, their presence still did not nullify its ability to convey immortality, otherwise God would've not said "... now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen. 3:22)

The tree of life in the new heaven (Rev 22) confers something other than immortality to God's children, since we'll already possess it! Perhaps in heaven our lives will continually be enriched, enhanced, and capable of growth in understanding of and appreciation for all that God had prepared for us well in advance of our being with Him in His abode. I think we need to leave a little metaphorical wiggle room in how we view the tree of life. The expression "L'chaim" implies growth, not merely longevity. God alone is the possessor of eternal life, and He never grows. We, on the other hand . . ..

But when did God prevent our first parents from partaking of the tree of life? Yes, AFTER they had sinned, not before. Both our "arguments" are, in a sense, based on--or depend on--the Scripture's silence on the matter, since we really don't know whether or not A & E partook of the tree of life prior to their fall from grace. I do not suggest dogmatically they did; that's why I said in my answer,"probably." Let's not forget the TOL in Rev 22. The saints will partake of it not to acquire immortality, but because they already possess it. Besides, God's command applied only to the TOTKOG&E.

I am afraid I don't understand you here. Are you trying to say that the tree of life somehow acquired the ability to convey immortality only after the fall of Adam, and prior to that it only had some special attributes, but not the ability to convey immortality?!

@brilliant: exactamundo! Why? Because prior to their disobedience A&E did not have the sentence of death hanging over them. What is more compatible than a possessor of eternal life partaking of fruit from the tree of life. Again, in the bookend TOL in Rev 22, the saints' partaking of that TOL does not impart eternal life; they already have the gift of EL. In the Genesis bookend, the TOL, similarly, nourished the possessors of immortality. After the fall, however, they were unfit to partake of its fruit (unless they wanted to live forever in their sin!). God had something FAR better in mind.

From eternity, He had a plan to wipe the slate clean, thereby providing humankind with a way of escape from sin and its death sentence. That plan was to send His only begotten Son into the world to liberate human beings from the penalty, power, and one day the very presence of sin. Jesus is the one in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin. When we believe in Him and receive Him as Savior and Lord, we have passed from death to life. On this side of heaven we have a more abundant life and we live in hope of eternal life when we die, even thought we possess it already by faith.

(1) I would rather stay within the context of this passage in Genesis and not jump to the book of Revelation as when you do that, you inevitably open up a whole lot of other dimensions that are now needed to be thoroughly searched before you could make any valid and reliable conclusions.

(3) moment of their regeneration. The former ones, however, are merely people who were not believers in Christ (because they had never heard of Him or, perhaps, heard, but only a few things and that wouldn’t count as hearing the gospel), however, they were still spared by God from the lake of fire because their names were written in the book of life (Rev. 20:15),

(4) and because during their lifetime they were doing their best to live according to their conscience (Rom. 2:14-15) – “by patient continuance in well doing were seeking for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:6-7). These ones don’t possess the eternal life of God, they don’t possess that kind of sonship, however, they still can live forever thanks to the healing that they get from the leaves of the tree of life in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2).

(5) These people include those who at some point in their life provided good treatment for God’s people and didn’t even realize that (Mat. 25:34-40). The men of Nineveh (Mat. 12:41), the queen of the South (Mat. 12:42) and Rahab the harlot (Jam. 2:25) will probably all be among them.

(6) The word “healing” in Rev. 22:2 is crucial. If they are the sons of God, why would they still need healing? A healing from what?! Have the sons of God not already been healed by “His stripes” (1Pet. 2:24) through believing into Him? Have they not yet been brought into His glory, and has the redemption of their bodies not taken place yet (Heb. 2:10, Rom. 8:18-23)?

(7) Have their “vile bodies” not already been changed to “be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself” (Phl. 3:21)? Are they still in their “burdening tabernacles” or they have already been “clothed upon”, and mortality for them has already been “swallowed up of life” (2Cor. 5:4)?

(8) Has the life of Jesus not yet “been manifest in their body” (2Cor. 4:10)? Are they not already bearing “the image of the heavenly”, instead of “the image of the earthy” that they used to bear before (1Cor. 15:48-49)? Have they not yet “put on incorruption” (1Cor. 15:48-49)? Has it not been told of them early in Revelation that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and

(9) there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Rev. 21:4)? What other healing would they still need then? What kind of power that God has either “overlooked” or failed to subdue do they still need to be healed from?

(10) Another thing is that you seem to assume that there exists only one unique tree of life and that the New Jerusalem and the paradise of God are one and the same place, and, thus, we are talking about the same tree here. However, even this point must somehow be checked and proven first.

(11) If one can readily accept that the tree of life in Rev. 2:7 is that very tree that we have in Genesis – because in both place it is stated that the tree is in paradise, it may still not be the case with the tree of life in the New Jerusalem.

(12) After all, the tree of life and the paradise in Genesis are associated with the old heaven and old earth, while the New Jerusalem is associated with the new ones, and it is “coming down out of heaven” (Rev. 21:1-2) – from the new one.

(13) It is also interesting that in the description of the New Jerusalem, while we are told that to “him who is athirst it will be given of the water of life freely” (Rev. 21:6) – which we can safely assume is the river of life – we are, in fact, never told explicitly that anyone will be eating the fruits of the tree of life.

(14) It does say that the tree will bear its fruits 12 times a year, but we are only told that “the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations”. This point also needs to be addressed first.

(15) Therefore, I would rather “linger” within the framework of Genesis for now and see if we can still illicit something solely from this passage.

(16) “exactamundo!” – So, originally the tree of life didn’t have the ability to impart eternal life (immortality) in people, but when Adam partook of the tree of knowledge, the tree of life quickly “got its act together”, “switched its gears” and somehow generated within itself an ability that it had never had before – the ability to impart the eternal life in humans. At the moment I find this theory highly unlikely and even crazy.

(17) First of all, it makes the workings of the tree of life for some reason dependant on what happens between Adam and the tree of knowledge. But why would it be so in the first place? Why would Adam’s action or, rather, his interaction with the tree of knowledge be determining the main function and the nature of the tree of life?!

(18) Why would the tree of life be so “sensitive” to what happens between Adam and the tree of knowledge? And why would God need to create such an “in-case-Adam-partakes-of-wrong-tree”-sensitive tree of life – only to create troubles for Himself of having later to bother to shut Adam’s access to that tree? Would it not have been easier not to create that sensibility in the tree of life at all?

(19) To me, the improbability of this theory goes even higher when I look at its origin. It was put forth for the sake of only one sole reason – to rationalize the possibility that Adam “might’ve partaken of the tree of life prior to partaking of the tree of knowledge” while this possibility is merely a product of our contemplations and has no basis in the Scripture.

@rhetorician ping