Cheryl Schatz

Gazza,
Welcome back! I missed you!

You say that the knowledge of good and evil is part of being created in the image of God and was not a result of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In Gen 2 v17 God Himself refers to the forbidden tree as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Does this name not indicate the nature of the fruit of the tree in the same way the name of the tree of life describes a tree which if eaten from Adam would live forever (Gen 3:22)?

There are so many excellent questions brought up by people visiting my blog and this question is another excellent one!

The forbidden tree as “the knowledge of good and evil”. The Hebrew word for knowledge here as a definite noun.

knowledge, i.e., information of a person, with a strong implication of relationship to that person
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

This knowledge is one that is used for intimate knowledge and is especially used for the deep knowing and relationship with God:

knowing me, the knowledge of me;…knowledge (of God).
Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (205).

So the nature of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the “intimate knowledge”.

In contrast what God said in Genesis 3:22 that man was/is like God in “knowing” good and evil. This knowing is a verb

1. LN 28.1–28.16 (qal) know, i.e., possess information about (Ge 4:9); (nif) become known (Ex 2:14); (piel) show (Job 38:12); 2. LN 27.1–27.26 (qal) find out, i.e., acquire information by whatever means (Dt 13:4[EB 3]); (nif) be aware, discovered (Lev 4:14); (hof) be made aware (Lev 4:23, 28; Isa 12:5+); 3. LN 28.28–28.56 (nif) revealed,
   Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

The knowledge that Adam had before was a knowledge of understanding not of intimate experience. Man was made with the ability to acquire and possession information as knowledge. Man did not get a conscience at the fall, but was made with this conscience at his creation. There is a vast difference between knowing about something (evil for example) and experiencing evil. While Adam had the knowledge of sin before he ate the fruit because he was not deceived, he did not experience that evil until he reached out (the act of intent to sin) and ate (the fulfillment of the act).

If the fruit did endow them with a new knowledge then the natural meaning of Gen 3:22 would be that it is this new knowledge which is described in the text (rather than a sin nature with is a concept external to the text) that resulted in Adam being kicked out of the garden.

There was no new information given to them about evil when they ate. But the very act of reaching out in rebellion and taking of the fruit did result in a sin nature for the man. This sin nature would be a constant and intimate part of Adam’s nature as he alone brought sin into the world, and God made sure that there was no opportunity for this rebellion to live forever in this same state.

This has been an area that has stumbled many people because they have not seen the difference in God’s words so that many have mistakenly thought that this was one time that God agreed with satan. But it is not true. The knowledge of good and evil and God has and which mankind was created with was not at all the same as was offered by the reaching forth and eating of the forbidden fruit.