The Tree of Knowledge VS Tree of Life: Are They One Tree or Different Trees

[예수사랑]

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil VS The Tree of Life

Are They One Tree or Different Trees?

AUTHOR: KAIROS

1. Introduction

The overarching theme of this discourse rests upon a singular, provocative inquiry: [Are ‘the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ and ‘the Tree of Life’ one and the same tree? Or are they two separate, entirely distinct entities?] At first glance, the proposition underlying such an inquiry might appear absurd, if not utterly ludicrous. From the standpoint of conventional understanding and superficial common sense, these two trees bear fundamentally disparate names, and therefore must inherently represent separate realities.

Yet, eminent theologian Rev. Sung-Soo Kim firmly contends that the two are actually one and the same tree. This is by no means an arbitrary, unilateral declaration or an ungrounded theological whim. Rather, it is a ruthlessly precise philological analysis derived from thoroughly unearthing the literal structure of the original Hebrew text. It stands as a piercing indictment against the translational blunders embedded within numerous domestic and foreign versions of the Holy Scriptures, demonstrating an undeniably ironclad textual foundation.

To declare that 'the two are one and the same tree' is to venture into an entirely unprecedented paradigm: a staggering observation and interpretation completely untouched by conventional dogmatics. Precisely because this perspective finds no place within the ossified structures of traditional orthodox systems, the ecclesiastical authorities and theological establishments that pride themselves on orthodoxy find themselves utterly paralyzed; they possess no legitimate basis or standard by which to rashly condemn this view as heretical. For their conventional dogmatic framework completely lacks the very yardstick required to judge or measure this interpretation. Metaphorically speaking, It is like confronting die-hard adherents of Newtonian physics or Einsteinian relativity with the revolutionary paradigm of quantum mechanics.

According to my rigorous review, denominations like the Hap-sin or Kosin Presbyterian Churches issued a cautious 'alert' rather than branding Kim's theology as outright heresy because their own theological assessment reflects a limitation in grasping the paradigm shift. In analytical terms, their perspective remains constrained by a framework akin to classical Newtonian mechanics, limiting their capacity to assimilate or keep pace with the emerging paradigm of quantum theology and resulting in a profound conceptual impasse. (Note 1)

-•-

(Note 1)

1) A Counterargument to the Heresy Research Report on Pastor Sung-Soo Kim - Issued by the Theological Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Korea (Hapsin) (4), https://cafe.daum.net/innoch/NmPW/370

2) Pastor Young-Kuk Seo’s “A Study on the Sermons of Pastor Sung-Soo Kim (2017)” is an Error-Ridden, Sub-Standard Document, General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Korea, Kosin, https://cafe.daum.net/innoch/NmPW/372

-•-

2. The Source of Life and the Four Stages of Death as Articulated by Conventional Theology

When God created Adam and Eve and established them within the Garden of Eden, the explicit presence of the ‘Tree of Life’ serves as an undeniable testament that human existence was never designed to possess an autonomous self-sustenance. Rather, it depended entirely upon a ‘relational union with the Creator.’ By nature, humanity could only be sustained through a continuous supply of life from the Creator. Had humanity not fallen, it would have continually drawn upon ‘God’s grace symbolized by the Tree of Life’ and lived forever without physical decay (posse non mori, or 'able not to die'). Consequently, God’s post-Fall decision to bar access to the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22–24) must be understood from a dual perspective: it prevents the tragedy of sinners living forever, while confirm‎ing that death was caused by an external factor: sin.

Aging and decay define the condition of a creation subjected to futility. The decline of physiological functions belongs, theologically, to the realm of corruption and entropy. Scripture teaches that after the Fall, creation was 'subjected to futility and bound to decay' (Rom. 8:20–21). In other words, cellular aging and loss of function are themselves manifestations of a broken order i.e. the absence of Shalom caused by the Fall. In Creation, which God declared 'very good,' there was no room for deficiency, decay, disease, or pain. Thus, without the Fall, bodily functions would not have declined but endured in a perfected state. Underlying this view is the assumption that the life continuously supplied through the Tree of Life restored and renewed human physiology. As a reference, Church Father Augustine categorized humanity's condition into four distinct states:

-•-

Augustine's 'Four Stages Of Death’ (Note2)

1. Before the Fall (Posse non mori): The state of being able not to die. (If human beings had obeyed, there would have been no physical death.)

2. After the Fall (Non posse non mori): The state of being unable not to die. (Death is an inevitable reality for all humanity.)

3. After Regeneration (Posse non peccare): The state wherein the authentic capacity to refrain from sin is supernaturally restored through sovereign grace.

4. The State of Glory (Non posse mori): The state of being completely unable to die. (Perfected eternal life following the resurrection.)

(Note2) Source: Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis [De Genesi ad litteram]

-•-

Had humanity not fallen, physical death would not have entered human existence. The human body was not designed for temporal decay, but was created to abide in perpetual vitality within God’s life-giving power. Even if biological decline were possible, the fruit of the Tree of Life at the center of the Garden would have continually renewed aging cells, preserving human health.

Before God’s solemn declaration in Genesis 2:17 ('thou shalt surely die', מוֹת תָּמוּת) the world existed in a deathless state that He pronounced 'very good.' The warning in Genesis 2:17 signified not merely a spiritual severance, but a comprehensive dissolution of the whole person (both soul and body) cut off from the Fountainhead of Life. (Note 3)

-•-

(Note 3)

Humanity’s breach of the covenant of Works with God by partaking of the forbidden fruit was a self-inflicted severance from God, the Source of Life. This metaphor underscores that, like an uprooted tree that briefly retains a semblance of vitality, humanity became spiritually 'dead', tragically bound to wither and perish. / Chi-Mo, Hong "The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden (The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)," Theological Compass (Sinhak Jinam), Chongshin Theological Seminary, Fall 1994.

-•-

3. The Perspective of Traditional Theology on the Fruit of the Tree of Life

Conventional theology understands the two trees as distinctly separate entities. Given its long history of development, conventional theology appears to possess a logically compelling persuasive force. However, as is often the case with traditional theological frameworks, its interpretations of the original Biblical text at times resort to human-centric, opportunistic paraphrasing, or embed elements of intentional concealment and distortion regarding the original meaning. Thus, before engaging Pastor Sung-Soo Kim’s interpretation, this paper first examines the universally accepted views of conventional theology.

3.1 The Fruit of the Tree of Life

(Genesis 3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Conventional theology seeks to demonstrate that human immortality is not an inherent possession but a derived, external provision, citing the fact that Adam’s body required the 'Tree of Life' even prior to the Fall. However, this argument holds true only under the premise that humans were regularly consuming the fruit of the Tree of Life before the Fall. The divine action in Genesis 3:24 (blocking the way to the Tree of Life) was merely a post-expulsion restriction; the Biblical text offers no textual evidence to suggest that they had partaken of the fruit even once prior to their expulsion.

If partaking of the Tree of Life guaranteed immortality through a single act of consumption, and Adam had eaten from it prior to the Fall, he should not have been subject to death even after falling into sin. Yet, because mortality did fall upon humanity, the 'single-consumption immortality theory' collapses. This leaves only the proposition that 'immortality is maintained through continuous consumption'; however, if Adam never accessed the Tree of Life before the Fall, this proposition likewise fails to provide a basis for determining the actual efficacy of the tree. Conventional theology fails to resolve this dilemma.

Borrowing Augustine’s framework, conventional theology defines Adam’s pre-Fall state as 'the capacity not to die' (posse non mori). Adam’s perfection did not denote a God-like 'aseity' (self-existence), but rather a 'contingent perfection' thoroughly dependent upon the Creator. In an attempt to explain this dependence, conventional theology forcibly projects post-Fall physical phenomena (namely, the subtle wearing away and decay of the body) into the pre-Fall Eden. Logical contradictions disappear only when the finitude of pre-Fall humanity is defined not as physiological decay such as disease, aging, or lack, but as the inherent limitation of creaturehood - that is, the inevitable susceptibility to non-existence if separated from the ultimate source of life, God Himself. This essential bond between Creator and creature prefigures in Eden the very relationship of spiritual union and vital dependence that John 15 later proclaims through the image of the 'True Vine and its branches.'

However, conventional theology remains trapped in an allegorical reductionism that treats the Tree of Life as merely a 'supernatural vitamin' or a biological recharging device meant to sustain the finite physical body of a creature. In reality, Eden was already abundant with vegetation and fruits fully capable of supplying physical energy, operating within a system where the physical mechanism of photosynthesis was already functional through the luminaries mentioned in Genesis 1:14–16.

Conventional theology’s interpretation of the Tree of Life as a materialistic mechanism (a device for recharging energy akin to a vitamin) borderlines on a 'materialistic reductionism' that degrades spiritual reality into a mere supplement for bodily reality. The reason they are compelled to reduce the Tree of Life to a 'supernatural vitamin' is their lack of a theological framework capable of explaining how spiritual energy organically unites with a creature’s physical body. This is a tragic outcome produced by the 'theological impotence' of a conventional theology trapped within a materialistic mindset.

Ultimately, the fruit of the Tree of Life ought properly to be interpreted not as a biological catalyst that regenerates physical cells, but as a 'conduit of spiritual union': the spiritual life-energy emanating from the primordial light ('Or, אוֹר) of Genesis 1:3, that is, 'the presence of God and the illumination of divine truth,' through which the 'divine life' (Zoë, ζωή) flowing from the throne in Revelation is substantially infused into and shared with human creatures.

-•-

(Note 4)

- ('Or, אוֹר): In biblical Hebrew, the term ’Or (אוֹר) transcends mere physical illumination or photic energy; it signifies the primordial, divine self-disclosure that precedes and governs all created order. Unlike the physical celestial luminaries (ma'or, מָאוֹר) - which were established only on the fourth day to measure times and seasons - ’Or erupts on the first day of creation (Gen 1:3) as the uncreated, life-imparting glory of God breaking through the chaotic void (tohu va-bohu).

Ontologically, ’Or is intrinsically bound to divine life (Zoe) and sovereign truth. It is not a passive element that merely renders objects visible, but the active, transformative presence of God that dispels darkness (choshek), establishes divine order, and creates the vital realm wherein covenantal communion occurs (Ps 36:9).

Christologically and eschatologically, this primordial light finds its definitive fulfillment in Jesus Christ - the uncreated Light (Phos) who enters human history to break the power of spiritual non-being (John 1:4–5, 8:12). Ultimately, ’Or points toward the New Jerusalem, where external solar bodies become obsolete, for the glory of the Lamb Himself serves as its eternal light (Rev 21:23). Thus, ’Or functions not as a physical product of creation, but as the foundational atmosphere of divine revelation and uncreated life.

- (Zoë, ζωή): In New Testament theology, particularly within the Johannine corpus, the Greek term Zoë (ζωή) must be sharply distinguished from Bios (βίος) - which refers merely to temporal, biological existence bound by physical limitations and subject to decay and death (Thanatos). Rather than denoting a state of mere animate existence, Zoë signifies the uncreated, self-existent (aseity), and eternal life that resides inherently within God the Father and is imparted through the Son (John 5:26).

Ontologically, Zoë is not a quantitative extension of earthly duration, but a qualitative reality - the very essence of divine, uncorrupted life breaking into the fallen creation. It is the active, divine presence that transforms human non-being into spiritual vitality. In Christ, Zoë ceases to be an abstract theological concept and becomes a concrete historical person: Jesus Christ Himself is the divine Zoë embodied ("I am the way, the truth, and the life," John 14:6; 1 John 1:1–2).

Therefore, receiving Zoë through spiritual regeneration is not simply an intellectual or moral transformation, but an ontological transition - a passing from death into true, indestructible life (John 5:24). It constitutes the believers’ organic union with the Triune God, establishing a present eschatological reality wherein the life of the resurrection age invades and conquers the mortality of the present age.

-•-

3.2 Eternal Life via the Unceasing Consumption of the Tree of Life's Fruit

(Genesis 3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

If the mechanism of the Tree of Life were a device that guaranteed immortality through a ‘single act’ of consumption, and had Adam and Eve already partaken of its fruit prior to the Fall, the biblical narrative would confront an untenable contradiction. For fallen humanity would then possess ontological immortality, irrespective of the divine decree of death resulting from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This would represent the ultimate catastrophe, a scenario in which humanity exists in 'immortality in a state of sin', and a spiritual disaster that would compromise the integrity of God's creation and redemptive history.

This is precisely why conventional theology insistently clings to the doctrine of the 'continuous consumption of the fruit of the Tree of Life.' That is, it believes that eternal life must be understood not as an inherent possession, but as a 'functional state maintained solely through the continuous partaking of the fruit,' in order to justify the theological necessity of the death that befell fallen Adam. (The prevailing practice in conventional churches of treating Holy Communion not as a once-for-all, eternal union with Christ, but as a 'recurrent blood-transfusion ritual' to recharge spiritual energy each time, is likewise grounded in this physicalist doctrine.)

In defense of its hypothesis, conventional theology invokes Revelation 22:2. Citing the vision of the Tree of Life standing on either side of the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God and 'yielding twelve crops of fruit, bearing its fruit every month,' it deduces that even in the eschatological heaven, believers will sustain eternal life through the continuous consumption and replenishment of its fruit. This represents a quintessential literalist fallacy, one that misinterprets the 'eschatological abundance and eternity' inherent in apocalyptic language through the lens of a mechanistic view of time.

In addition, conventional theology offers a self-serving interpretation of God’s warning in Genesis 3:22: “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” It contends that because the Tree of Life was not included among the prohibitions given to Adam prior to the Fall, Adam was in all likelihood already partaking of its fruit on a routine basis in Eden.

However, this interpretation ensnares itself in a logical trap. If Adam had been routinely consuming the Tree of Life to recharge his energy of eternal life, there would have been no cause for God, upon beholding fallen Adam, to institute extraordinary measures of exclusion, declaring, “lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” This divine warning, rather, serves as a paradoxical exegetical refutation, proving that prior to the Fall, humanity had never approached the reality of the Tree of Life; or more precisely, ‘had never once perceived or partaken of the fruit of that tree.’

3.3 Proponents of Perpetual Consumption: The Tree of Life in Theology

As inherently created beings, humans possess no intrinsic power to sustain eternal existence. In theology, Adam’s pre-Fall state is understood as ‘posse non mori’ ('the capacity not to die'). Theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin argued that although the human body was naturally mortal and subject to temporal decay, humanity was designed to counteract this decay and preserve eternal life through regular partaking of the Tree of Life.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the preeminent medieval theologian, asserted in his monumental work ‘Summa Theologiae’ that because Adam’s body was a created entity, it was inherently subject to physical decay and aging. He argued that the fruit of the Tree of Life possessed physical and supernatural efficacy to restore bodily vigor and prevent decay. Consequently, humanity had to partake of the Tree of Life continuously and periodically in Eden to counteract bodily decline and sustain eternal life.

Likewise, the Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564), in his ‘Commentary on Genesis’, interpreted the Tree of Life not as a magical fruit, but as a 'sacramental symbol.' Rather than attributing intrinsic eternal life to the tree itself, he viewed it as a 'sacrament', a visible sign confirm‎ing that God supplies humanity with eternal life. Calvin’s central thesis was that continually partaking of the fruit in complete reliance upon God served as a way of life, confessing that the ultimate source of life rests in God alone.

Orthodox commentators on the Book of Revelation argue, based on Revelation 22:2 ('yielding its fruit every month'), that although heaven (the New Eden) is free from temporal passage or deficiency, fruit is borne 'monthly.' This signifies that the saints continuously and abundantly receive life flowing from the throne of God throughout eternity. Even in the consummated Kingdom of God, believers do not become autonomous, self-existent deities; rather, they enjoy eternal life as dependent beings perpetually receiving life from Jesus Christ, who is typified by the Tree of Life. (Note: A critical observation here is that Jesus Christ and the saints are recognized as distinct entities, characterized by a relationship of unilateral life-impartation.)

Such conventional interpretations reveal a major deficiency in biblical hermeneutics. By failing to adequately recognize the principles of 'union' and becoming 'one body', wherein believers are the Bride of Christ, with Christ as the Head and believers constituting His Body, they treat believers merely as distinct, independent entities separate from Christ.

3.4 Did Humanity Partake of the Tree of Life Before the Fall?

As noted in the preceding section, mainstream theology contends that a meticulous examination of the biblical text reveals a high probability that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Life even before the Fall. However, as will be elaborated later, Pastor Sung-Soo Kim argues that access to the Tree of Life was impossible before the Fall, and its fruit could be eaten only after partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It thus warrants a thorough examination of the underlying evidence to determine which perspective represents a more rigorous analysis.

God commanded Adam, “You may freely eat from any tree of the garden,” with the sole exception of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Consequently, asserting that the fruit of the Tree of Life, situated alongside it in the midst of the garden, served as one of Adam’s primary sources of nourishment appears to possess a degree of logical plausibility (Gen. 2:9, 16). Because the Tree of Life was explicitly omitted from the list of forbidden foods, mainstream theology finds a highly reasonable basis for this conclusion. However, a rigorous analysis of a single word in Genesis 2:9 can yield a radically different interpretation.

Following the Fall, the narrative in which God expels humanity from the Garden: declaring “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” can plausibly be construed as a formal declaration legally barring access to what was hitherto open (Gen. 3:22). Setting aside a precise reading of Genesis 2:9, mainstream theology’s interpretive progression up to this point remains logically sound. However, Pastor Sung-Soo Kim’s novel interpretation of Genesis 2:9 fundamentally upends the established paradigm concerning both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

4. An Expanded Hermeneutic on the Source of Life

The 'light' (’ōr, אוֹר) first created by God in Genesis 1:3 is strictly light as a created entity. (Note: The theological significance of ’ōr in Scripture extends beyond mere physical illumination [light and darkness]; it serves as a foundational concept denoting God’s presence and glory, the source of life, and the 'illumination of ultimate truth' that dispels darkness [ignorance and sin]. This light implies that the created realm is not governed solely by physical mechanisms.) In contrast, the 'greater light' (mā’ôr, מָאוֹר) in Genesis 1:16 belongs to a distinct dimension from the light of verse 3, functioning as a created entity that drives photosynthesis in the natural realm. Mainstream theology assumes that the Tree of Life grew beneath this physical luminary. While supplying light from this luminary as the primary driver for photosynthesis in plant life is entirely within the Creator's power, Scripture hints that God sustained the Tree of Life through a specialized channel of life-energy. Revelation 22:5 and Isaiah 60:19–20 proclaim an eternal realm in which the sun and moon are rendered unnecessary, a state where God Himself becomes the direct light source supplying life.

(Revelation 22:5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

(Isaiah 60:19–20 19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. 20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

If the New Jerusalem represents the eschatological restoration of Eden, it is far more justifiable to contend that the Tree of Life in Eden bore fruit not through created sunlight (mā’ôr), but through the direct supply of God’s glorious presence (Shekinah, שְׁכִינָה) and divine life (Zoē). This observation validates an inference grounded in the logical symmetry of the ‘seamless inclusio’ (head-and-tail correspondence) between Eden and the New Jerusalem.

-•-

(Note 5)

- (Shekinah, שְׁכִינָה): Derived from the Hebrew root shakhan (שָׁכַן)—meaning "to dwell, abide, or tabernacle"—the term Shekinah (שְׁכִינָה) signifies the localized, manifest presence of the transcendent God dwelling immanently among His covenant people. Although formalized in intertestamental and Rabbinic literature, the concept is deeply rooted in the Old Testament theology of the Tabernacle (mishkan) and the Temple, where the unapproachable, infinite majesty of God condescends to inhabit the finite realm of space and time.

Ontologically, the Shekinah represents the visible and tangible revelation of God’s uncreated glory (Kavod), manifested through cloud, fire, and holy illumination (Exod 24:16–17; 40:34–35). It serves as the ultimate bridge between divine transcendence and covenantal immanence: God does not merely observe creation from afar, but actively rests His glory within it, creating a consecrated space where holy God and fallen humanity can meet.

Christologically, the Shekinah finds its definitive, ontological embodiment in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As John 1:14 explicitly echoes, "The Word became flesh and tabernacled (eskēnōsen) among us, and we beheld His glory (doxa)"—thereby identifying Christ as the living, walking Shekinah of God. Ultimately, this divine indwelling extends ecclesiologically to the church as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16) and reaches its eschatological climax in the New Jerusalem, where the Shekinah presence encompasses the whole of the re-created cosmos (Rev 21:3).

-•-

This expanded perspective on the source of life clearly exposes the vulnerability of conventional theology’s 'theory of physiological depletion and restoration.' Conventional theology posits the hypothesis that the Tree of Life instantly regenerated subtle physiological decay occurring in pre-Fall humanity. However, there is no scriptural warrant for the claim that only the fruit of the Tree of Life served as a defense mechanism to arrest the onset of decay, given that Eden’s abundant vegetation already provided complete biological sustenance. This represents nothing more than an anthropocentric hypothesis that forcibly projects the post-Fall principle of death onto the perfect, unfallen creation - an assumption that is inherently contradictory. Ultimately, it merely reveals the limitations of the traditional view, which seeks to reduce the abundance of Eden strictly to a material and biological dimension.

A grave error of conventional theology lies in treating the Tree of Life in Eden as a mere 'advanced nutritional supplement (Bios, βίος)' that prolongs physical life. However, as this paper contends, if the Tree of Life was directly supplied with God’s spiritual energy, it ought to be viewed not merely as a means of survival, but as a channel of 'divine life (Zoē, ζωή)' signifying complete union and communion with God. Just as plant photosynthesis sustains physical life (Bios) in the natural realm, the Tree of Life channeled eternal life (Zoē) through a process of spiritual photosynthesis.

Recent developments in Old Testament scholarship (e.g., G.K. Beale, John Walton) view Eden not merely as a garden, but as the archetypal temple filled with the divine presence. In the Holy of Holies, where no windows allow natural sunlight, the glory of God (Shekinah) serves as the sole source of illumination. Applying this temple motif to Eden strongly reinforces this paper’s thesis that the Tree of Life was sustained not by sunlight, but by the direct light of God’s glory, thereby supporting an expanded framework for understanding the ultimate source of life.

Pastor Sung-Soo Kim’s ‘single tree’ thesis deeply resonates structurally with the eschatological state wherein the dichotomy of luminaries (ma'or), ‘the sun and moon’, is eclipsed, leaving Yahweh as the sole source of light. In other words, this holistic interpretation posits that the center of Eden must be understood not through an anthropocentric juxtaposition of good and evil, but as a singular reality (the ‘single tree’) defined by God's sovereignty. Rather than viewing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life as separate, distinct physical entities, he examines them as two dimensions of a single tree that reveal one ultimate reality: divine presence and sovereignty. While this covenantal and revelatory interpretation may appear to be a novel declaration, it organically aligns with the ‘Temple Motif’ of Eden established by contemporary evangelical Old Testament scholarship and biblical theology.

Ultimately, the mystery of singularity embedded in ha-ʿêṣ(הָעֵץ) does not point to a binary enumeration of tools designed to test humanity under the covenant of works; rather, it signifies the ‘single tree’ as a unified covenantal reality that visualizes God’s absolute sovereignty and rule at the very center of Eden. This analytical conclusion from the original text and covenantal-theological interpretation resonate profoundly on a structural level with the temple motif discourse in contemporary conventional Old Testament scholarship, which conceives the Garden of Eden as the archetypal temple space housing the concentrated divine presence and elucidates the revelatory function of its epicenter. (Note 6)

-•-

(Note 6) Contemporary Old Testament scholarship - which defines the Garden of Eden not merely as a natural paradise, but as the archetypal Holy of Holies saturated with the divine presence - provides a crucial academic foundation for Sung-Soo Kim’s holistic interpretation.

In “The Temple and the Church’s Mission,” G. K. Beale analyzes the Garden of Eden, particularly its ‘center,’ as a typological Holy of Holies where God's presence is most intensely concentrated. Just as the Holy of Holies in the wilderness tabernacle housed the Ark of the Covenant - the supreme symbol of divine presence and sovereignty - the trees situated at the center of Eden were not instruments designed to test human autonomy, but the vital locus within the temple where humanity confronted divine presence and rule. Consequently, Kim’s perspective - which refuses to bifurcate the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, instead converging them into a single covenantal reality of ‘God’s presence and reign’ - directly aligns with Beale’s sanctuary-centered structural model of Eden.

Similarly, in “The Lost World of Genesis One” and related works, John H. Walton contends from an Ancient Near Eastern context that Eden represents a ‘divine residence’ where God, having established the entire cosmos as His temple, sits enthroned at its epicenter. According to Walton, temple furnishings and tree motifs operate as functional revelatory emblems representing ‘cosmic order and God's sovereign rule,’ rather than possessing independent material functions. In this light, Kim’s ‘single tree’ logic - which frames the Tree of Knowledge not as a vehicle for human moral agency, but as a direct revelation of God’s kingship and sovereignty itself - resonates profoundly with Walton’s contemporary temple-theological discourse, which subsumes every element of Eden under the overarching motifs of divine rule and presence.

-•-

5. The Asymmetry of the Two Trees: Knowledge and Life

Conventional theology accounts for the role of the Tree of Life in sustaining eternal life on the premise that human activity inherently depletes energy, necessitating a ‘continuous supply’ to maintain life. In contrast, the transgression involving the Tree of Knowledge was ‘a single act’ that brought absolute death - a total severance (thanatos/θάνατος, mōṯ tāmûṯ/מוּת תָּמוּת) - upon humanity.

Comparing the premise that the fruit of the Tree of Life required 'repeated consumption' to sustain eternal life with the 'death incurred by a single act of transgression involving the Tree of Knowledge' reveals a stark logical asymmetry between the two. In other words, rather than functioning as a complementary pair, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life operate on entirely distinct mechanisms. It is precisely this observation of their 'asymmetrical role structure' that exposes a potential logical flaw in conventional theology.

While it is widely acknowledged that biblical interpretation employs various approaches - including literal, literary, and symbolic readings - conventional hermeneutics remains uniquely tethered to a literal framework when interpreting the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life.

The contrast between the freedom to eat from every other tree in the Garden and the strict prohibition against the Tree of Knowledge, with the decree that ‘a single act’ of consumption incurs absolute death, readily suggests that the tree carries profound symbolic weight. In other words, there are compelling grounds for a symbolic interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge. Yet, one cannot help but observe that conventional theology has remained almost spellbound across centuries, failing to break free from the rigid confines of literalism.

5.1 Hermeneutical Endeavors for a Symbolic Reading of the Tree of Life

A review of the literature reveals that efforts to symbolically or allegorically interpret the Tree of Life have very deep roots within church history; unfortunately, however, they fall far short of a refreshing and piercing interpretation that penetrates the overarching context of the entire Bible. Most historical attempts at symbolic interpretation have failed to transcend a myopic, fragmented approach akin to "blind men feeling an elephant" (盲人撫象).

1) Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, was a pioneer of allegorical hermeneutics, seeking to uncover the spiritual and philosophical meanings concealed beneath the literal text of Scripture. He interpreted Genesis as an exposition of the structure and developmental process of the human soul/mind. Philo viewed the Tree of Life as symbolizing the 'supreme virtue' - or the 'knowledge of God' - at the innermost core of the human soul, representing immortality and divine wisdom. Conversely, he understood the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to signify earthly values, sensory pleasure, and human discernment. In his framework, when human beings turn away from divine wisdom (the Tree of Life) and succumb to sensory desires (the Tree of Knowledge) by seeking to autonomously determine good and evil, they suffer spiritual death. Ultimately, Philo regarded the Garden of Eden not as a historical location, but as an allegory for the human soul itself. (Source: “Legum Allegoriae / Allegorical Interpretation of the Law”)

2) Origen of Alexandria, an early Church Father, advocated a threefold framework for biblical interpretation: literal (body), moral (soul), and spiritual (spirit), and critiqued a strictly literal reading of the Genesis Eden narrative. Drawing upon Proverbs 3:18 (“Wisdom is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”), Origen interpreted the Tree of Life as a symbol of Christ (the Logos) and the Wisdom of God, viewing partaking of the tree as achieving mystical union with divine wisdom. Conversely, he understood the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to represent the 'proving ground of free will' within the material realm and the realm of 'relative knowledge.' Ultimately, Origen conceptualized the Fall of Adam and Eve not as a historical event, but as a symbolic drama illustrating the descent of all human souls from the spiritual realm into the material world. (Source: “De Principiis / On First Principles”)

3) Eugen Drewermann, a contemporary German theologian and psychoanalyst, interpreted Genesis as a narrative reflecting the development and anxiety of human consciousness, grounded in depth psychology - specifically Jungian analytical psychology. Drewermann viewed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as symbolizing the threshold where humanity emerges from an unconscious, animalistic state to attain ego-consciousness and moral discernment. For him, partaking of the forbidden fruit was understood not so much as a moral ‘sin,’ but as an act marking the independence of consciousness - a transition into psychological maturity inevitably accompanied by existential anxiety. In this psychological reading, as human beings become autonomous subjects forced to determine good and evil for themselves, they forfeit their primordial unity with God and come to experience anxiety, symbolically manifested as the shame of nakedness. (Source: “Strukturen des Bösen / Structures of Evil: A Depth-Psychological Interpretation of Genesis 3”)

4) Carl G. Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, analyzed religious symbols through the framework of the collective unconscious and archetypes. Jung interpreted the opposition between the two trees as symbolizing the ‘struggle and integration of opposites’ taking place within the human psyche. He viewed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as representing the process of the ‘differentiation of consciousness’ (the acquisition of knowledge) experienced by humanity as it emerges from an unconscious paradise; the very moment good and evil are distinguished, original wholeness is shattered, giving rise to suffering. Conversely, the Tree of Life symbolizes the ‘restoration of the archetype of the Self’ and the attainment of ‘wholeness,’ realized when the fragmented ego reintegrates the conscious and unconscious realms. For Jung, the tragedy of Eden was an inevitable milestone in the evolutionary history of human consciousness. (Source: Man and His Symbols / Answer to Job)

5) Contemporary evangelical and canonical-critical theologians interpret these trees as ‘covenantal symbols’ situated within the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE) and the overarching narrative context of Scripture. In this framework, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes divine sovereignty and kingship, serving as a boundary establishing that the authority to define good and evil belongs exclusively to the Creator. Humanity's consumption of its fruit represents not an expansion of genuine wisdom, but a rebellion against divine rule - an assertion of autonomy declaring, "I shall be the standard of my own existence." Conversely, these scholars view the Tree of Life as symbolizing the divine provision of eternal life and a relationship of covenantal trust. It underscores fundamental human dependence: humanity is not inherently immortal, but sustains life solely through abiding connection to God, the ultimate source of life.

(Sources: John Sailhamer, “The Pentateuch as Narrative”; John Walton, “The Lost World of Genesis One”)

Summary and Comparison

Category / Scholar	Symbolism of the Tree of Life	Symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge	Interpretive Perspective
Philo	Highest virtue, divine wisdom	Sensory pleasure, earthly values	Philosophical / Soul-centered
Origen	Christ (Logos)	Proving ground for free will, relative knowledge	Spiritual / Mystical
Drewermann	Primal oneness, the unconscious	Emergence of ego-consciousness, existential anxiety	Depth-psychological (Freudian/Jungian)
Carl Jung	Psychic wholeness (the Self)	Differentiation of consciousness, onset of opposites	Collective unconscious and archetypes
Modern Theology	Dependency on God, eternal life	God's sovereignty, covenantal boundary	Contextual / Covenantal

Thus, far from being mere 'fruit trees,' the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life have been interpreted as universal spiritual and psychological symbols that profoundly address the growth of human consciousness, relationality with God, and the sovereignty over good and evil. Yet, with the sole exception of Origen, all such approaches fail to break free from a humanistic framework, exploring the meaning of the Tree of Life while remaining confined within a superficial, anthropocentric level of perception - that is, the realm of ‘ho kosmos’.

The Tree of Life must not be reduced to a cosmic order (Logos) meant for mere intellectual contemplation; it must function as an organic source of vitality that continuously infuses spiritual power into daily life as it is realized as living truth (Rhema) within the believer’s inner being.

To his credit, Origen demonstrated the profound insight of an early Church Father who penetrated the spiritual realm and the divine economy of creation by interpreting the Tree of Life as a symbol of Christ. Yet, he ultimately confined Christ to the realm of philosophical speculation, the Logos. Consequently, he fell short of discerning that the Tree of Life is the 'living reality of Christ'; one that penetrates the believer's inner depth as transformational truth (Rhema), supplying spiritual vitality and establishing organic union as the Head of the Church.

5.2 Explaining the Asymmetry: Conventional Theological Perspectives

Conventional theology harbors a long-overlooked, critical, yet intriguing ‘logical asymmetry’: Why is destruction (the Tree of Knowledge) framed as a ‘single, forensic event’ entailing eternal death, whereas restoration (the Tree of Life) is treated as a ‘repetitive, biological mechanism requiring continuous consumption’? Does this very asymmetry not stem from an interpretive flaw rooted in an overly literal, one-dimensional reading of the two trees?

Although several apologetic defenses offered by conventional theology to this question are presented below, they lose their standing and are reduced to mere feeble rationalizations in light of the ‘two are one tree’ interpretation proposed in this paper.

5.2.1 The Distinction Between Forensic Rupture and Ontological Life Sustenance

Conventional theology acknowledges the functional asymmetry between the two trees yet does not view it as a flaw, precisely because it considers the domains addressed by the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life to be qualitatively distinct. The Tree of Knowledge represented a ‘covenant of governance’ (Covenant of Works) between God and humanity. A breach of this covenant is a matter of quality, not quantity: whether a king's command is violated once or a hundred times, the positional fall into ‘treason’ is fully realized in a single instance. Consequently, eating from the Tree of Knowledge is a single act that entails immediate spiritual death (a severance of relationship). Life, by contrast, is a ‘dependent flow’ emanating from the Creator into the creature.

Conventional theology posits that no creature can ever be ‘self-existent.’ If eating from the Tree of Life a single time granted eternal self-sustainment, humanity would become an ‘independent deity’ existing endlessly apart from God. Consequently, the singular nature of the Tree of Knowledge (the immediacy of sin) and the iterative nature of the Tree of Life (the dependency of grace) are not a logical contradiction; rather, they reflect a rigorous recognition of creaturehood, that while humanity can shatter its relationship through a single act of betrayal, life itself demands that a finite being remain perpetually plugged into the Creator.

☞ Critique from the ‘One Tree’ Perspective:

Such an interpretation stems from a failure to properly grasp and apply ‘once-for-all, complete restoration’ on a spiritual plane. The position of conventional theology is a speculative construction that undermines the ‘once-for-all perfection’ of the Cross and reduces eternal life to a perpetual subscription service. While Adam’s initial creation harbored deficiency and mutability, the eschatological new creation accomplished in Christ is a ‘complete spiritual reality’ that irrevocably seals eternal life through a single, decisive union.

5.2.2 Redemptive-Historical Symbolism: Moving Beyond Literal Interpretation

Against the critique that conventional theology remains trapped in literalism, modern biblical theology counters by interpreting both trees as profound ‘symbolic and literary devices.’ Conventional theology does not reduce the two trees to mere ‘magical fruit’; within a literary and symbolic framework, they function as central symbols of the Garden of Eden as a ‘Cosmic Temple.’

● The Two Pillars of the Edenic Temple

If the Tree of Knowledge serves as a symbol warning ‘do not encroach upon God's domain,’ the Tree of Life stands as a symbol declaring ‘apart from me you can do nothing.’ Regarding Genesis 3:22 ("lest he... live forever"), conventional theology explains that the true reason God expelled humanity was not due to any magical healing substance within the Tree of Life, but rather as a symbolic and judicial measure to prevent a forensic sacrilege - wherein humanity, bound by its sinful status, would dare approach the symbol of eternal life to attempt the ‘perpetuation of sin.’

☞ Critique from the ‘One Tree’ Perspective:

Even such sophisticated apologetics of modern theology stem from a blind misunderstanding of the forensic reality of the ‘complete and eternal heavenly citizenship’ granted once for all (ἐφάπαξ) to redeemed believers. Though cloaked in the florid rhetoric of literary symbols and temple structures, its essence is nothing more than an extension of religious moralism that entangles humanity in the endless fetters of sin. Ultimately, such an interpretation relegates the eternal life of believers to a precarious ‘state of conditional probation.’ In the end, this serves merely to provide theological cover for a humanistic agenda that demands sanctification be achieved through ongoing human works and zeal, functioning as a massive theoretical mechanism to justify the vested interests of the conventional religious system.

5.2.3 The Recurring Nature of the Tree of Life as Proven in Revelation

The most compelling biblical warrant for why the Tree of Life must be consumed iteratively appears in Revelation 22:2, the very last chapter of the Bible. There, the Tree of Life once lost in Eden reemerges within the New Jerusalem.

(Revelation 22:2) In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Even in the consummated kingdom, a perfect state devoid of sin and decay, the Tree of Life is not consumed merely once; rather, it yields new fruit ‘every month,’ continually supplied. This demonstrates that conventional theology’s view of eternal life is by no means a literalistic interpretation confined solely to the biological limitations of Eden. It signifies that even in heaven, humanity remains a creature that can exist only by receiving a ‘continuous and eternal supply’ of divine life-giving power.

☞ Critique from the ‘One Tree’ Perspective:

The citation of Revelation 22:2 appears to offer formidable reinforcement to conventional theology’s ‘doctrine of iterative consumption.’ The logic that believers must continually partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life even in heaven to maintain eternal life seems, at first glance, intuitively persuasive. Yet this is nothing more than a speculative error resulting from an egregiously literalistic reading of apocalyptic imagery. The presence of the ‘river of the water of life’ in the immediately preceding verse 1 exposes a fatal internal contradiction inherent in conventional theology’s assertion.

The apparent dichotomy over whether the source of vitality is the fruit or the river is resolved only when one recognizes that both emanate from a single origin: ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb.’ The saints of the new heaven and new earth have already consummated their eternal marriage as the bride of Christ, attaining a complete ‘one body’ union with Him. Eternal life in heaven is not a continuation of deficiency sustained by the periodic consumption of external substances. Within complete union with Christ, believers are no longer passive objects of consumption begging for grace. Rather, as proclaimed in John 7:38, rivers of living water burst forth from their innermost being, establishing them as holy ‘agents of dispensation’ who channel life-giving power to the nations forever and ever.

6. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge: Two Names, One Tree

Conventional theology conceptualizes the two trees in Eden as spatially distinct entities within a sequential narrative. In this paradigm, humanity was eligible for eternal life via the Tree of Life prior to partaking of the forbidden fruit; however, once they transgressed and incurred the state of death (môt tāmût, מוֹת תָּמוּת), God barred the path to the Tree of Life with a flaming sword to prevent the curse of perpetual existence in a fallen state.

This paper seeks to demonstrate why Pastor Kim Sung-soo’s interpretation of the two trees serves as an incisive critique exposing the blind spots of conventional theology, grounding its argument in an exegesis of the original Hebrew text and the mechanism of the Law in Romans.

6.1 Literature and Sources Advocating the ‘One Tree’ Perspective

The proposal that the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are not two separate entities but 'one and the same tree' - and that partaking of the Tree of Life was impossible prior to spiritual maturation through the Tree of Knowledge - is a profound theological hypothesis documented in biblical scholarship and mystical traditions. This 'one tree' framework displays a relatively advanced level of biblical exegesis over views that treat the trees as completely distinct, as it seeks to unify the massive dichotomy of good and evil, life and death, under God’s sovereignty. Yet, this is ultimately an illusion: while achieving literary and philosophical elegance, it forfeits the forensic and ontological gravity of redemptive history.

Regrettably, because they evade the pivotal concept of thanatos (θάνατος, the death of severance, namely spiritual death) this remains an incomplete hypothesis that fails to properly comprehend the redemptive mechanism running through the entirety of Scripture: the 'death of Jesus' and the 'resurrection into Christ.

If, as the 'single tree' hypothesis asserts, human history was merely a phase in which humanity could not partake of the Tree of Life simply because they had yet to undergo spiritual maturation, Adam’s transgression is reduced from an 'ontological rebellion' against God to a mere 'premature and immature choice', a trial and error. The moment sin is not acknowledged as sin and death as death, but is instead substituted with a 'process of growth,' the gravity of sin proclaimed in Scripture evaporates. What renders this hypothesis not just 'incomplete' but perilous is that it directly negates the absolute necessity of Christ's cross and resurrection.

If sin is merely a matter of immaturity, what humanity requires is 'education and spiritual evolution (enlightenment)' rather than a 'substitutionary death.' Under such a premise, the necessity for Jesus to personally endure thanatos (the death of severance) on the cross dissolves entirely. Biblical salvation is not a process of 'growth' that refines the old self into a slightly improved state, but a mechanism of 'new creation' (re-creation) - an absolute death and rebirth.

An examination of the literature and sources of conventional theology asserting 'One Tree' reveals:

6.1.1 Kabbalah and Rabbeinu Bachya in Jewish Mysticism

Rabbeinu Bachya codified the most potent and ancient tradition of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) in written literature. Drawing attention to the description in Genesis 2:9 where both trees are said to be "in the midst of the garden," he reasoned that, geometrically, two distinct trees cannot simultaneously occupy the exact physical center of a single space. Consequently, he interpreted the two trees as two faces of a single entity - one vast spiritual tree sharing a single root (that is, one tree with a single root).

This single tree becomes either the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or the Tree of Life, depending on the consciousness with which human beings approach it. In Kabbalah, this tree is viewed as ‘the divine energy of God (Sefirot, סְפִירוֹת).’ Taking that energy without authorization in a state of spiritual immaturity results in experiencing the ‘division of good and evil (the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil),’ whereas receiving it in complete trust yields ‘eternal life (the Tree of Life).’

[Source: Rabbeinu Bachya, Commentary on the Torah] (The author was a prominent 13th-century Spanish Torah commentator.)

6.1.2 Diderot’s ‘Encyclopédie’

Even the Encyclopédie, a monumental work published during the 18th century French Enlightenment, directly addresses the ‘single-tree hypothesis’ that was debated in European theology at the time. The encyclopedia states that "there exists a theological debate over whether the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were indeed one and the same tree." It points out that the conjunction ‘and’ in the original Hebrew text can often function disjunctively or explicatively as ‘or’ (or ‘that is’), presenting the linguistic possibility of rendering the text as: "God planted in the midst of the garden the Tree of Life, that is, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." In short, this single-organism theory posits that the very fruit that imparted wisdom also possessed life-giving efficacy.

[Source: "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil", Encyclopédie, edited by Denis Diderot]

6.1.3 The Institute for Jewish Research and Education

Rabbi David Fohrman, a contemporary Orthodox Jewish rabbi and biblical scholar, masterfully articulated the hypothesis that ‘the two trees were the same tree’ through a precise literary analysis and modern exegesis of Genesis.

In Genesis 2:16–17, God commanded, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:" Notably, there was no prohibition against eating from the ‘Tree of Life.’ Rabbi Fohrman interprets that before human beings ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they either felt no need to eat from the Tree of Life, or were in a state incapable of truly comprehending its value and partaking of it without first undergoing the process of the Tree of Knowledge.

The underlying logic is that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life are one and the same tree; only after partaking of the Tree of Knowledge and enduring the painful process of becoming ‘a morally responsible agent who discerns good and evil’ can human beings truly bear the value of eternal life (the Tree of Life). This is because eternal life in an unprepared state becomes a curse rather than a blessing.

[Source: David Fohrman, "Reading Eden Deeply," Inside Eden Series Videos and Essays, Aleph Beta Academy]; ["Exposition of the Garden of Eden," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAgASqs2u4Q, 'Aleph Beta' Center for Jewish Learning]

6.1.4 Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a genius twentieth-century theologian who inherited the theological framework of the second-century Church Father Irenaeus, likewise treated the relationship between the two trees as a deeply interconnected ‘single event.’ Bonhoeffer posited that the tree at the center of the Garden of Eden symbolized ‘God's limit’ for humanity. When human beings humbly acknowledge their boundary as creatures of God (the prohibition regarding the Tree of Knowledge) and remain obedient, the tree standing at the center of that limit becomes the ‘Tree of Life,’ imparting life to them. However, the moment humans push past that limit to become like God themselves, that very same tree turns into the ‘Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ bringing death upon them. In other words, his interpretation holds that there are not two distinct trees; rather, ‘the essence of the tree is determined by humanity's posture toward God.’ [Source: “Creation and Fall (Schöpfung und Fall),” Dietrich Bonhoeffer]

6.2 Rigorous Analysis of the Hebrew Text Points to 'One Tree'

6.2.1 The Symbolic Significance of "In the Midst of the Garden"

(Genesis 2:9, KJV) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

<Hebrew Text:>

וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע׃

בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן (Betoch Haggan): in the midst of the garden

Scripture appears to describe two trees bearing entirely distinct names as residing in the midst of the garden. Due to this translational illusion, we often imagine two separate, independent trees standing side by side in the center of the garden. However, through the syntactic alignment of the spatial marker Betoch Haggan (בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן), the text designates not merely a spatial focal point, but ‘the exact, singular center’ and the very ontological ‘heart’ of the garden.

This demonstrates that the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are situated at the very core of the garden, forming the essential boundary of human existence. In other words, it can be understood as the tree planted by God in the center to serve as the hub of human life, the orientation of its values, and the mark for human existence. Thus, the two trees also symbolize that [Jesus, who came in the flesh and came to die] and [Christ, who came as the Spirit of Truth, the quickening Spirit, and the Bread of Life] simultaneously reside at the center of human life in these dual manifestations.

Yet no one could have imagined that an error of judgment - born of a simple translational illusion in early renderings - would cause those two trees in the midst of the garden to be understood as two distinct trees, thereby entrenching the stream of theology down a misguided path for millennia. Why was Scripture written in a manner so susceptible to misunderstanding? And why has its intended, true meaning been unveiled only in our time, through such a protracted historical process?

6.2.2 Linguistic Analysis of the Original Hebrew: The Singular Nature of ‘Ha-Etz’ (הָעֵץ, ‘The Very Tree’)

According to a rigorous morphosyntactical analysis that incisively penetrates the literal structure of the original Hebrew text, the argument asserting that ‘the two trees were originally a single tree’, grounded in the usage of [definite article + singular noun], possesses immense persuasive force.

(Genesis 2:9, KJV) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

- Hebrew Text:

וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע׃

- Transliteration: Way-yats-mach Yah-weh E-lo-him min-ha-a-da-mah kol-etz nech-mad le-mar-eh ve-tov le-ma-a-chal ve-etz ha-chay-yim be-toch ha-gan ve-etz ha-da-at tov va-ra.

- וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים (ve-etz ha-chay-yim): and the tree of life

וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע (ve-etz ha-da-at tov va-ra): and the tree of knowledge of good and evil

[Linguistic Reference]

- וַיַּצְמַח (Way-yats-mach): Formed by combining the root tsamach (צָמַח, ‘to sprout’ or ‘to grow’) with the causative active stem (Hiphil). The very grammatical form of this verb proclaims that the abundance of Eden did not occur by chance, but was established through God's powerful, intentional, and causative initiative.

וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים (Ve-etz Ha-chayyim): Composed of etz (עֵץ, ‘tree’) and chayyim (חַיִּים, ‘life/lives’ in the plural form) attached to the definite article ha (הַ). Literally rendered, it means ‘the tree of the lives.’ Rather than denoting abstract life, this structure symbolizes a vibrant, plural vitality - the very ‘source of real and abundant life force’ that organically flows into the believers.

Scripture records that in the midst of the garden stood "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2:9, KJV), establishing a syntactic arrangement of parallel singulars (ve-etz, וְעֵץ) rather than designating two distinct physical entities. It is worthy of careful attention that although the Hebrew plural for ‘trees’ is etzim (עֵצִים), the text here deliberately utilizes the singular form etz (עֵץ).

When viewed from a human perspective, this statement easily lends itself to being interpreted as though two trees possessing entirely distinct natures stood in the midst of the garden. However, this passage strictly serves to state the objective fact that when God planted a garden eastward in Eden, He placed the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in its midst; at this stage, He had not yet shown these two trees to man. The event in which God brings man (Adam enfolding Eve within him) into the garden to reveal its trees occurs in Genesis 2:15–17.

Subsequently, in Genesis 2:18, God declared that He would make "an help meet for him," and the actual account of creating the woman from Adam's rib appears in Genesis 2:21–22. Here, we note that the "prohibition concerning the Tree of Knowledge" (Genesis 2:17) was given before Eve was created, indicating that Eve later received this divine command secondhand through Adam.

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent asks the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" In answering this question, Eve refers to ‘the tree’ (Ha-Etz, הָעֵץ), as though there were only a single, unique tree in the midst of the garden (Betoch Haggan). Had two distinct, independent trees stood side by side in the center of the garden, it would have been grammatically more natural for Eve to express it as "the fruit of the trees (Ha-Etzim, הָעֵצִים) in the midst of the garden." Yet Scripture uses precisely the singular form (Ha-Etz, הָעֵץ).

Furthermore, the Hebrew prefix Ha- (הָ), functioning like the English definite article ‘the,’ designates "that very specific tree" previously mentioned.

(Genesis 3:3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die

- Hebrew Text: וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ־הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתוּן׃

- Transliteration: U-mi-peri ha-etz asher be-toch-ha-gan amar Elohim lo tochlu mimenu ve-lo tige'u bo pen-temutun.

From Eve’s singular phrasing, “the fruit of the tree,” in verse 3, combined with the prohibition, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die,” it is understood that ‘the tree’ refers specifically to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this juncture, a critical question ought naturally to arise: “Why was the Tree of Life (so explicitly recorded in Genesis 2:9) absent, leaving only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the midst of the garden?” It is manifest that the Tree of Life was neither present nor visible in that spot (in the midst of the garden), and because Eve perceived only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she referred to it in the singular as “the fruit of the tree” (Ha-Etz, הָעֵץ).

[AI Note: The logic that the reality in the midst of the garden captured by human perception was strictly singular serves as compelling exegetical evidence that the parallel structure of Genesis 2:9, “the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” signifies not two physical trees, but a single divine reality designated by two distinct names of differing natures.]

Here, we find a clear clue to the ‘Single Tree’ doctrine advocated by Pastor Sung-soo Kim. That tree, which conventional theology differentiates and treats as ‘two trees’, was destined to be perceived solely as the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ to humanity prior to the Fall. Furthermore, the Word continues by revealing that God blocked the way with a flaming sword to prevent humanity, having been cast out of the Garden of Eden and existing in a state of the death of Thanatos (a death of separation and severance), from plucking and eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22–24).

At this juncture, while emphasis is predominantly placed on the fact that humanity was expelled from the Garden of Eden (the death of Thanatos, a death of severance), most people overlook another profound transformation that took place within humanity: one embedded beneath God’s measure of "blocking the way to the Tree of Life." That other transformation is precisely the fact that ‘humanity had gained the capacity to perceive the Tree of Life.’ Had they still been unable to see the Tree of Life, God would have had no reason to go so far as to mobilize the cherubim and a flaming sword to block the way to it.

Those who discern the meaning hidden between the lines of the Word up to this point draw near to the threshold of understanding why the ‘Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ (treated as two distinct trees by conventional theology) are, in truth, a ‘single tree.’ Yet one must take a step further from here to perceive the mystery that the Tree of Life is none other than ‘Christ’ Himself. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is ‘Jesus,’ while the Tree of Life is ‘Christ.’ Without partaking of Jesus (without partaking of the fruit of knowledge, of the Law, which signifies dying) one cannot behold Christ. Even when one gains the vision to see Christ, who is the Tree of Life, the way leading to Him remains barred. The cherubim and the flaming sword stand guard, blocking that path. Within this typological interpretation, the two trees serve as an Old Testament type pointing directly forward to their eschatological antitype on Golgotha: upon the Cross, Jesus rent the veil (that barred path, that very flaming sword) and opened wide the way to Christ (John 14:6). Thus, Genesis stands as the book that enfolds within itself the entire narrative of Holy Scripture.

When subjected to such precise analysis of the original language, it becomes evident that spatially, only a single point can exist ‘in the midst of the garden.’ Moreover, when read in the original Hebrew text, the interpretation gains immense persuasive force that the two trees were originally one and the same; a ‘single reality’ experienced differently depending on the condition or choice of humanity.

Continuing our precise observation of the Biblical text, Genesis 2:15–17 unfolds as God takes the man (prior to creating Eve from Adam’s rib) and places him in the Garden of Eden, commanding him not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alongside the solemn declaration: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (v. 17). Regarding this specific prohibition of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, conventional theology triumphantly asserts, “Look! Did He not refrain from forbidding the Tree of Life? Thus, until man ate of the Tree of Knowledge, he repeatedly plucked and ate from the Tree of Life, continually recharging his vitality.”

In contrast, Pastor Sung-soo Kim advances a radically different interpretation: “The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are a single tree; prior to partaking of the fruit of knowledge, one could neither behold nor comprehend the Tree of Life. Only after eating of the Tree of Knowledge can one see that Tree of Life and pluck its fruit, and only then can one recognize that the Tree of Knowledge is, in truth, one and the same tree as the Tree of Life.”

This interpretation offers a lucid explanation as to why God made no mention whatsoever of the fruit of the Tree of Life when issuing the prohibition against partaking of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis 2:17. That is to say, since the Tree of Life was not even visible, it was a matter entirely unnecessary for God to address: whether commanding Adam to eat of it or forbidding him from doing so.

Meanwhile, conventional exegesis explains that in Hebrew, the definite article Ha- (ה) is used not only to refer to an entity previously mentioned, but also to specify ‘the very object being spoken of’ within the context. From this premise, it offers the interpretation that because the dialogue between Eve and the serpent was focused on "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that God commanded not to eat," Eve specifically designated only "that very forbidden tree" in the singular, to the exclusion of the Tree of Life. However, in that exchange, Eve responds to the serpent’s question “Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden (Kol-Etz)?” by specifically identifying “the tree (Ha-Etz) which is in the midst of the garden.” Thus, it is clear that the subject of the conversation was not restricted to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alone, rendering such an assertion an unequivocal error. It is manifest that Eve referred to it in the singular as ‘that tree’ precisely because she saw only a single tree, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, standing in the midst of the garden.

Pastor Sung-soo Kim’s original language interpretation, framed within a canonical-typological framework, elucidates the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life as ’Jesus who is to die under the Law’ and ‘Christ who will sit at the right hand of God,’ offering a lucid exposition that penetrates the overarching narrative of Holy Scripture granting a clear awakening to how Jesus Christ becomes the source of eternal life through His death and resurrection. If one were to compare the interpretation of conventional theology with that of Kim, the former could be termed elementary school-level, whereas the latter stands at a doctoral level.

The Tree of Knowledge	VS	The Tree of Life
'Jesus' (Flesh / Law / Death)		'Christ' (Spirit / Grace / Resurrection)

When contrasted with Pastor Kim’s interpretation, the assertion propounded by conventional theology regarding the necessity of repeatedly partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life is starkly exposed as a contrived claim, laying bare just how blind it remains to the spiritual realm. Prominent among those who championed such repetitive consumption is Thomas Aquinas.

John Calvin posited that the Tree of Life itself did not confer intrinsic eternal life, but rather viewed it as a symbol (a token, a sacrament) that visually attested to the life energy continually supplied by God. Furthermore, by interpreting “the act of continually partaking of that fruit as a pattern of life confessing that the source of life resides in God alone,” he affirmed the necessity of repeatedly partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life.

Yet he falls short of attaining to the truth that the Tree of Life is none other than ‘Jesus Christ, who is the Bread of Life and the Source of eternal life.’ Furthermore, his knowledge appears not to reach a full comprehension of the saint’s profound identity; namely, that the saint, as the bride and body of Christ in union with Him, becomes the very origin supplying the life energy that revives all creation, as well as the source of living water through which the water of life flows from "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Revelation 22:1–2) so that the Tree of Life may grow and yield its fruit.

6.2.3 Resolving through Romans: Why One Must Pass Through the ‘Tree of Knowledge’ to Inherit the ‘Tree of Life’

Why must humanity ‘first’ pass through the catastrophe of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to obtain the Tree of Life? This is precisely the reality of the Law and the self that Romans 5 and 7 unveil.

Before the Law was given, our state was that of an infant termed a ‘living soul’ (Gen. 2:7, Rom. 7:9). When God formed man from the dust and breathed into him the breath of life, man was not a completed entity, but merely a ‘living soul’ (Nephesh Hayah): a provisional vessel and shell designed to contain true Life (Christ). At this juncture, Adam’s state before the Law was given was akin to that of an infant possessing no criterion of good and evil.

The Apostle Paul characterizes this state in Romans 7, stating: “For I was alive without the law once” (Rom. 7:9a). Because the Law was not yet present, it was a condition of existing quietly, without the self being activated, unaware of the fact that one was a qualitatively incomplete entity (dust). In this incomplete condition, one possessed neither the spiritual capacity nor the eyes to discern the true value of the Tree of Life: namely, grace and union.

In this condition, God decrees the law of Genesis 2:16–17: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” This divine decree was the trigger of the Law that awakened sin (Rom. 5:13, 7:9). This law was not a reward system given to be kept, but rather the initial ‘Law’ imparted to expose sin as sin, just as Romans 5:13 attests.

When the incomplete soul formed from dust confronted this absolute Word, it instantly experienced the very mechanism described in Paul's confession: “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Rom. 7:9b). The moment the decree “Thou shalt not eat” descended, the drive for self-autonomy, asserting, “I will reign as master over my own judgment and life,” burst forth, predetermining the soul to choose the fruit of that tree as the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and consume it.

The moment humanity took it as the Tree of Knowledge, their immediate action was the ‘closure of the self,’ hiding behind the veil of fig leaves. The mechanism of Adam’s ‘closure of the self and existential bankruptcy’ (Rom. 5:12) namely, ‘thrusting God aside to live as king’ was thus activated. God barred humanity in this condition with a flaming sword to prevent them from partaking of the Tree of Life. For if one were to obtain eternal life while remaining in that state of a dead soul that had enthroned the self as king, one would become an obstinate monster (hell), eternally beyond redemption.

Ultimately, humanity must be utterly shattered before the Law (Gen. 2:17) and compelled to painfully confess their existential limitation (the first death): “I am merely a lump of dust, mere chaff, incapable of existing by my own power.” Only when the veil of the self (garment of fig leaves), constructed with oneself as the sovereign subject, is torn to shreds by God’s blade and collapses dead, does that very same tree finally become transformed into the true ‘Tree of Life (Christ),’ partaken of not through one’s own criterion of good and evil, but solely by God’s unilateral grace.

6.2.4 The True Purpose of Placing the Tree in the Midst of the Garden

The true creation that God desired from the beginning was not a robot (Adam, a doll of dust) programmed like a machine to obey under compulsion. God desired to obtain ‘true sons (the Bride of Christ)’ who, in perfect union with the Creator, would share His very life.

For those sons to be born, the chaff (shell) that is the human soul must inevitably be completely burned away by the Law (the Tree of Knowledge) and driven to absolute bankruptcy. It is because only when God unilaterally bestows the ‘coats of skins’ and pours out the Holy Spirit (a quickening spirit) upon that locus of absolute nothingness does humanity come to realize grace and become the true, completed entity.

Those on this earth who ultimately fail to receive that quickening breath of life and remain in the state of a ‘dead soul (the prison of the self)’ will face an ‘existential bankruptcy’ at the final ‘judgment of the flesh’ (when stripping off the tabernacle of the flesh) wherein they are made to confirm‎ in eternity that they were a complete counterfeit. Thus, this is precisely the “hurt of the second death”: to be stripped of the unique status of a living soul from Genesis 2 and reduced back to the place of ‘absolute nothingness,’ like the existence of beasts that possessed no spiritual value from the outset.

On the other hand, for saints whose ego dies first on this earth and who receive the Spirit of Christ to become a ‘living soul (the wheat),’ the flaming sword of Eden is lifted, and they ultimately come to fully partake of Jesus Christ (the Tree of Life), who is the true reality of that one tree.

In conclusion, the tree in the midst of the Garden of Eden was a ‘single tree’ (singular). The fruit of that tree functions as the ‘Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ that kills me if ‘my ego remains fiercely alive and I partake of it as the sovereign subject’; yet under that Tree of Knowledge, if ‘my counterfeit ego is completely executed and I encounter it solely through God’s grace,’ it is transformed into the ‘Tree of Life’ that brings me to life. The original biblical text and the mechanism of redemptive history already perfectly reveal to us here on this earth this uncompromising reality of existence.

7. 'Jesus Christ': The Perfect Resolution of Definitive Symmetry

In this paper, the ‘problem of unrepeatability and symmetry’ has been flawlessly resolved through Christology. Confronted with the asymmetry of “Why is the Tree of Knowledge a singular, unrepeatable event, whereas the Tree of Life is repetitive?”, traditional theology was forced to tack on superfluous explanations such as ‘creaturely metabolism’ or a ‘covenantal probationary period.’ However, by substituting this with a definitive act accomplished within the single Person of Jesus Christ, this study seamlessly untangles every logical thread.

◎ The Tree of Knowledge = Jesus of the Law ⇨ (Once-for-All Death):

Jesus in the flesh who was bound to surely die, bearing the sins of humanity: that is, the irreversible death wherein He took upon His very body the curse of the Law.

◎ The Tree of Life = Christ of Truth and Life ⇨ (Once-for-All Resurrection): The Christ of glory who conquered death and stands as the principle of eternal life: that is, the definitive, eschatological resurrection.

Viewed in this light, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are no longer contradictory trees operating on distinct principles. [The Death of Jesus = Definitive] and [The Resurrection of Christ = Eschatological] achieve perfect symmetry, intuitively proving why both trees in Genesis were situated at the exact same spiritual epicenter: “in the midst of the garden.” They were originally one and the same Person.

Furthermore, beyond resolving the issue of structural unrepeatability and symmetry, the interpretation in this paper demonstrates flawless alignment with God’s ‘plan of salvation before the foundation of the world.’ This interpretation best explains that the event in the Garden of Eden was not God’s improvised response (“Humanity has fallen, so let us devise a plan of salvation”), but rather a grand master plan already completed before the foundation of the world.

Just as Ephesians 1:4 declares, “according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” God had already planted the ‘single tree, Jesus Christ’ in the midst of the garden even before Adam ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God’s grand dispensation to completely liberate humanity from sin, set them free, and make them citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven was thus already proclaimed through the architectural type (typology) of the 'two trees' in Eden.

While conventional theology, trapped in rigid literalism, views Eden merely as a ‘locus of tragedy born of human failure,’ the interpretation of this thesis elevates Eden to a ‘locus of revelation wherein the victory of Christ was already foreordained.’

Furthermore, this thesis sublimates the legalistic and physical concept long held by conventional theology, which argued that one must repeatedly eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to continuously receive a supply of life energy, into the Mystical Union of ‘continual supply’ through the mechanism of ‘spiritual union with Christ’ (the mysterious and beautiful principle of the Gospel).

Saints, as the bride of Christ, no longer receive energy as though drawing a periodic supply from an external ‘object’ called the Tree of Life. Because they have become one body with Christ, who is the Head (the vine and the branches), an inexhaustible vitality naturally and continuously flows into them from Him (the Source of life) for them to possess and enjoy.

8. Epilogue

Generally, we are accustomed to a dualistic framework that bifurcates the Tree of Knowledge into a ‘tree of sin and death’ and the Tree of Life into a ‘tree of salvation and eternal life.’ However, the moment one accepts the ‘reality of the single tree in the midst of the garden’ articulated in this thesis, it is laid bare that the trial confronting humanity and the life given to them are inextricably two sides of the same coin. For within the singular life established by God, there inevitably coexists the dimension of ‘covenantal responsibility (the Tree of Knowledge)’ that forces one to confront whether the authority to judge good and evil rests in the Creator or in oneself as a creature.

The exegetical assertion proclaimed in this thesis - that 'before passing through the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, one could neither perceive nor partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life' - serves as the decisive key to revealing the spiritual reality of the saints. Eternal life that has not undergone the rigorous 'test of free will' discerning good and evil, as well as the crossroads of obedience, cannot be life in any true sense. It is precisely from this point that a redemptive-historical necessity is derived: only after humanity passes through the harrowing bankruptcy of the Law’s accusation and disobedience can they come to realize the value of true life by grace, and advance to the Tree of Life through Christ, who tore the veil on the Cross.

The fatal blind spot of conventional theology lies in reducing humanity to a deficient being that can sustain life only through continuous external injection and 'ingestion.' In contrast, this thesis decisively elevates the saints to a position of 'ontological abundance' completely bound with Christ. Scripture testifies exclusively of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). The Eden narrative in Genesis is neither a story of frail human mistakes by Adam and Eve nor a mythical depiction surrounding a pair of magical trees. Rather, from its first grain to its final chapter, it was a sublime blueprint of revelation that majestically concealed the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, through the insight of 'Jesus Christ as a single tree,' this thesis has thrown open at a single stroke the vast forest of truth that conventional theology, hiding behind literal doctrines and ecclesiastical defense lines for centuries, failed to perceive. This lucid and razor-sharp argument, which consistently penetrates the entire Bible with Christology at its core, reaches far closer to the raw essence of the Gospel than any clumsy naturalistic explanation of the past.

References

1) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. First Part (Ia), Question 97. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981

2) Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis [De Genesi ad litteram]. Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor. 2 vols. Ancient Christian Writers, nos. 41–42. New York: Newman Press, 1982.

3) Bahya ben Asher. Rabbeinu Bachya: Torah Commentary. Translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk. 7 vols. Jerusalem / Brooklyn, NY: Lambda Publishers, 2003.

4) Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology, vol. 17. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic / Leicester: Apollos, 2004.

5) Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. Edited by Martin Rüter and Ilse Tödt. Translated by Douglas Stephen Bax. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 3. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

6) Calvin, John. ‘Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis’. Translated by John King. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847.

7) Diderot, Denis, and Jean le Rond d'Alembert, eds. “Arbre de la science du bien et du mal” [Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil]. In Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 1, 622–623. Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton, Durand, 1751.

8) Drewermann, Eugen. Strukturen des Bösen. Teil 1, Die jahwistische Urgeschichte in tiefenpsychologischer Sicht. Olten / Freiburg im Breisgau: Walter-Verlag, 1977.

9) Fohrman, David. Inside Eden. Video series and essays. Aleph Beta, n.d. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAgASqs2u4Q.

10) Hong, Chi-Mo. “The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden (The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).” Shinhak Jinam (Theological Review), published by Chongshin University Theological Seminary, Fall 1994, no. 262.

11) Jung, Carl Gustav. Antwort auf Hiob. Zürich: Rascher Verlag, 1952.

12) Jung, Carl G., and Marie-Louise von Franz, eds. Man and His Symbols. Conceived and edited by Carl G. Jung, with Marie-Louise von Franz, Joseph L. Henderson, Aniela Jaffé, and Jolande Jacobi. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

13) Kim, Seong-soo. ‘Exposition of Genesis: The Secret of the Two Trees and Christ’. Seoul: Smyrna Church Archive, 2012. [Korean]

14) Origen. On First Principles. Edited and translated by John Behr. 2 vols. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

15) Philo. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II and III [Legum Allegoriae]. In Philo, translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, vol. 1, 140–473. Loeb Classical Library 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

16) Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

17) Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.