God's First Law - Genesis 2:16-17

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17 NASB)

Rather than define legal texts in terms of commands, I decided to look for a pattern.  Two things will indicate for me that the text is legal in nature.  First if the text has an imperative coupled with a consequence, whether good or bad, that is one sort (or two sorts with one sort of indicator) of legal texts.  Second, if an imperative is coupled with a declaration of endorsement or rational support, a reason is given for it.  Right now, those are the two criteria that immediately spring to mind.  I may find others in clearly legal texts, but right now I’ll use these two.

With those two criteria, I have eliminated the first imperative given in Scripture found in Genesis 1:28, the series of imperatives to manage the earth.  But in Genesis 2, I find the first example of one of these two types of legal texts.  In verses 16 and 17 God sets the boundary of what Adam may eat in the Garden.  He may eat freely (an intensified verb) from any tree but one.  The one in the center of the knowledge of good and evil produces fruit that will kill Adam on the day he eats of it.  The verb for death here is an intensified verb as well.  Just as surely as Adam will eat at all, he will die the day he eats of that tree.

I consider this a law partly because it is a command with a consequence, and that is one of my criteria.  But this is also labeled as a “command”.  This is part literary since there seems to be a narrator in this text missing from chapter 1, but this text feels different somehow as well.  There is a difference in the command missing from the previous imperatives.  I believe the difference lies in the consequence, which is one reason I have adopted that as a criteria.  I believe this difference was understood by the writer as well.  When this text was recorded it was sensed to be different from the previous one.  I suppose part of that was also foreshadowing.

So, examining these two verses as a legal text, what is the law made up of?  First of all it provides permission.  Adam may eat freely from any tree in the Garden where God placed him.  Adam is only limited by the Garden itself.  It could be asked why he would want to be otherwise, but the same question could be asked about the forbidden tree as well.  He seems content to remain within the boundaries of the Garden for his food.  So, even here his freedom is given within a boundary, the Garden.  While the rivers stemming from the Garden indicate that this Garden was enormous and provided life to the rest of the earth, still, it formed a boundary.

Secondly, this command provides a limitation.  From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Adam shall not eat.  And a reason is given:  in the day he eats of it he will surely die.  At this point, I wonder how much Adam understood of the concept of death.  So far what has died?  Both animals and people eat plants, not each other (Genesis 1:29-30).  There wouldn’t be an occasion for death.  I am also struck by the names for the two trees: The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Why not the tree of life and the tree of death?  Death results from eating the second tree just as life results from eating from the other one, so why that name?  Is it possible that God is helping Adam make his choice by providing a definition for something of which he has no experiential knowledge?

The purpose of this blog is to examine legal texts in the Hebrew Scriptures to discover their practical use to those who base their relationship to their Creator solely on Jesus as their Savior.  So where’s the practical use in this one?  In this law I find insight into my Master’s will for me and all people, perspective into my Master’s character, and finally from these first two I gain a glimpse into what could be the essential irreducible form of my Master’s interaction with His human creatures.  That’s a lot to derive from a few verses, so I do so with the understanding that it’s highly interpretive and subjective.

When God created the Garden in Eden He placed two trees.  One He called the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The trees obviously represent a choice, and it was clearly the will of God that the Tree of Life be chosen over the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He wants to be the source of my understanding of good and evil.  Trying to work this out for myself leads me to compromise where mixtures can favor one over the other and gain acceptance.  Evil can wear the guise of good and I can be easily deceived.  When I define good and evil I favor myself and miss the definition of God, hence I sin; I miss the mark.

The law regarding these two trees shows me that my Master will not leave me in the dark about what I need to maintain my relationship with Him.  He considers my relationship with Him so important that He communicates the boundaries.  He loves me so much that He takes the initiative and doesn’t expect me to “guess right” in order to be in right relationship with Him.  Sure He provides a choice, there were two trees, but He also provides direction as to what choice to make.  Anyone claiming it was cruel to provide two trees would still like 31 flavors of ice cream.  At least He provides direction, that’s more than I get from Baskin Robins.

I think that this law combined with the title of the two trees sets a precedent my Master follows throughout the remainder of Scripture.  If I had to give the opposite of life, it would be death.  Yet in a world where death is unheard of, what good would it do to provide a choice between life and death?  Instead, my Master provides insight into the term rather than just uses the label.  Death is defined here as what happens when I take on the role of knowing good and evil; a role reserved for God alone.  To say it another way, death occurs when I seek knowledge apart from the Creator of the universe; “…in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” 

In Genesis 3, from the result of Adam and Eve’s choice I find that what happens is separation from the good relationship with my Master.  Death is not defined by my Master biologically but rather He defines death relationally. But I also believe that He continues to help understand that definition throughout the rest of Scripture.  He wants me to know what they mean so I can choose.  In Deuteronomy 19, He wants me to choose life and blessings over death and curses.  In John 17, I find that, in the upper room, Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the One True God and the One He has sent.  The only knowledge I need is of Jesus.

So while this is a lot to unpack from a few verses, I think their place among Scripture provides support for unpacking meaning from them in this way.  This is one law that I think provides valid important insight into my relationship with my Master.  It is a law, the intent of which I do well to follow, and provides insight into my Master’s will for me.  That is a lot of value, even though I may not be judged on the basis of this law, to a degree, because I have chosen to relate to my Master (the Tree of Life, knowing the One True God and the One He has sent), it does define my salvation.  I’d say that’s one important law.