It does not to me since God is the one who actually provides this life ingredient in the tree. E.g., the elevator is not greater than Elisha Otis who invented it. This is simply the way that God has designed for man to physically live forever, and as I see it, that is the best that could have been done for mortals.



Knowing the hurt that sin would inevitably bring, including death for many, as already explained here it was indeed in mercy. However ‘sinful man managing to live forever was possible with the fruit of life.

It seems to me that man’s life was cut short after the flood to keep in check the increase of sin. With man being subject to death earlier, that would make them think twice before engaging in evil ways. It would also decrease the population expansion, thus allowing for God to work out his prophetic plans as needed without again being forced to start all over, as with the flood, due to the conditions then. Shorten lives also involves diminished intellectual and physical performance, and thus a slower pace in the increase of knowledge, as prophetically crucial.



It seems to me that this is exactly what you are doing here. Jesus Himself spoke of the importance of the Tree of Life for the Redeemed in Rev 2:7 as well as the other mentions in Revelation. EGW repeatedly and clearly makes this point. Gen 3:22-24 shows the physical reality involved here, as expressed by God, particular in regards to sinful man. Jesus said that a sinful man will surely die, however God [and the SOP] had said that they could live forever as sinful people. Did the physical make up of man change at the cross? I fully understand that without accepting Christ man will die, however I do not see anything throughout the Bible or SOP that says that this death will occur for any other reason than the fact that that sinful person will not be granted access to the Tree of Life. Jesus merely made a physical reality go through him as due, to be effectuated. However he did not destroy that physical reality. That is a similar reasoning that people use to say that the Ten Commandments have been abolished. I.e., because Jesus brought forth grace. To paraphrase EGW: ‘one statement of God does not destroy the other’. We should instead see how the reconcile. So I theologically see that Jesus took the pre-fall equation: Man + Sinlessness + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life and added the needed pivotal Gospel Provision that: Man + Atoning Sacrifice + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life. And that is all in the GC context where the Tree of Life had only been granted access to for sinless man. If that had not been the case the equation would potentially be Man + Tree of Life = Perpetual Life.

As I said before, the Cross was always a Plan B, and a bridging one at that, in this equation that Man could live forever by just eating this God-Provided fruit of Life.



Access to the possibilty of perpetual life now comes through faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Explain away the illustration in this post where even a redeemed person worshipping at the foot of the throne of God at the mouth of the river of life every day in Heaven will not die if He does not eat of the fruit of life and you’ll begin to prove your point where your theological understanding for eternal life ends with Christ, something which EGW also does not relate.



Simply said, given my prior restatments here, ‘Yes to all 4 points.’



The most ironic thing is that you are actually fully correct here, not by what you actually seem to believe, but because of the actual realities involved in the Fruit of Life. As I had said here:



This “ingredient of Life” probably comes directly from God and is provided through man and creation only via a necessary mediated from (i.e., River of Life-Tree-Fruit|Aroma). I still have a question if this now only comes from God the Father, if the “God in Jesus” actually eternally died in the atonement sacrifice, i.e., the Lawgiver forever died to redeem man.



You’ll have to provide more substantiation for this since at least 2 other people in this thread (+ EGW) see Gen 3:22-24 as being ‘plain and straightforward’. In regards to Gen 3:15, it was a prophecy (as the SOP also says). I understand “plain reading” as it is exegetically ascertainable. So also engaging in such exegesis should make these “clear” also to you. So as far as I see it here, you are the one who is in the “unique” category here. I also am not to be blamed for a lack of exegesis on the part of you or others.



In regards to living eternally, the sacrifice of Christ was a Plan B. Perpetual Life for man was to be provided otherwise, but as I say, this life ingredient itself actually comes from God, which also includes, at least possibly, prior to the Cross, Michael/Jesus Christ.



There is sufficient Bible and SOP that support that Gen 3:22-24 is indeed foundational to man living forever, whether sinful or not.



I have responded to that saying that the “spiritual” realization here will be that sin will even result in the death of God if it is ever to be dealt with. Even the death of God was the only option/way to ultimately eradicate it. That indeed was the lesson that God wanted to portray on the cross. Yet it does not negate the fact that sinful man can live forever if they ate of the Fruit of Life. Since EGW also clearly says that, this is how I see these two sets of statements reconciling with each other. In this case an intended perception did not eclipse the possible reality was it not, but for the barring action of God in Eden. Indeed a sinful person, (i.e., one who live according to his will and not God’s, as many people do today), who has access to the tree of life, can, avoiding certain diseases and mortal wounds, live forever. God however wanted to completely avoid the sure death and bloodshed that could also result even is such a sinfully “good” life.



My assurance in certain points that may be unique to me is all based upon exegesis. If I am advancing a personal opinion, I, naturally, contrary to what you may understand, will not state it with such assurance. E.g., my understanding that the ‘“God in Christ” eternally died at the Cross.’ So, as I say you need to challenge the foundation of what I have stated, which as a seminarian, you, of all people should have been, and should be, most capable of doing. (Even if I am saying so myself, it is a good thing that I can, and will correct an exegetical mistake that I may have made. My aim here is also to arrive at Biblical Truth and not merely/paramountly, to personally be right).



As I said before, there is a Theological chief/foundational element to Gen 3:22-24 which is corroborated in the many quotes EGW made on the Tree of Life which transcend the entire period of the GC, and does not end at the Cross as you are claiming.



See this post. You will find that my GC view emphasizes/highlights the Theological realities revealed in the Bible, as seen with the Tree of Life.



I guess I should have added “exegetically” teaches, because that would have factually dismissed many views of people who are not bothering to take this step, which does not necessarily involve delving into the original languages, but also just letting the text speak for itself from its context. E.g., when Gen 22:12 says: “Now I know” that is what is to be understood or also: when Isa 46:10 says: “Declaring the end...” it is not saying ‘I know the end’ or even “making known the end”, but indeed stating what it will come to be as with any “declaration.” The pertinent wider context also supports this view. It is private views that bar such plain readings, also ignoring this wider context. In regards to your understanding of Christ’s words on “Life”, it is easy to see that many times Christ was figuratively speaking, i.e., He was not necessarily that physical thing but symbolically the key to that what was done by or the physical aspect of, that thing. E.g., Christ saying that one who believes in Him will never die, is clearly to be understood spiritually sin we will now still die.



I am most willing to do that, however prove it first. I am not going to accept one’s view simply because of the sentimentalism they have attached to it. That is why exegesis is paramount to Biblical understanding.

This “full result” in context speaks of the immediate destruction of Satan and his host for having sin by opposing the government of God, prior to sin having been allowed to fully develop. There is no mention or implication here at all by the SOP that “It took the cross to make the connection between sin and death clear.” It is simply how sin exactly, we fully develop, will bring about death, that is the issue here as explicitly stated in the preluding 763.4-764.1. (This is what I mean by eisogesis and not allowing the text to plain read for itself, but reading it through one’s own theological views.)

I personally see the EGW statement here pointedly saying that such “entropy” only began when man/nature would be “dperived” of the fruit of life.

As man is, and will always be free, they can always commit murder if they so choose. Christ does not take away this accessible possibility but removes the inherited tendency to such sins for those who accept his sacrifice in faith. Sinful man did not have to murder anyone else. Human nature would make this a likely possibility but there could alway be a last man, couple or clan/tribe standing even through this violence, which could have been “self-defence” for them. So a sinful man could indeed live forever.

I must further point out her APL, that “this Seed” can indeed really only be truly/fully fulfilled in Christ. I think Paul’s theologically related comments in Gal 3:16 & 19, emphasizing the singular form here (as both the Greek and Hebrew for zera & sperma (respectively) is in Gen 3:15) shows that this is to be perfectly, if not solely fulfilled in Christ. (cf. Rom 16:20). So “the seed” may indeed be speaking of the fallen nature that Satan brought about through influence vs. the coming perfect Divine nature that will be found in Christ. Interestingly both natures were present in Christ (with, of course, the human nature being sinless, but, as the SOP says, just like any man’s living at that time.)

It is only eisegesis if the Bible does not support it in other places.
Can I absolutely prove it? No. But Matthew 13 sure hints at it, and Romans 5:12, 18, and Psalms 51:5.Is the devil a father? Does he have offspring? Or, could this be interpreted in another way with respect to genetics?

Question - is God arbitrary? Is God ever arbitrary? When God said, do not eat of the tree, was this an arbitrary test of obedience on the part of God? Did God arbitrarily forbid the eating of the fruit?

What is the life of God? Could it not be that the life that God has given us is encoded in our very being, in our DNA? Is we destroy that DNA, we then alienate our selves from the life of God? The law that controls our 100 trillion cells is written in the DNA. Transgress that law = misery and death.

Is this not eisegesis? This is your opinion. Genesis 3:22 says that the Tree of Life would have caused man to life forever. Are you saying that if Man had not been barred from the Tree of Life, that out nature would have remained perfect?
HOW would Satan correct the law of God in Heaven? How could supply an amendment? The real question is, what is God's law?

Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan."

In the Bible it says, "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?


What other questions do you have in mind?

Also, it is obvious that the answer to the three questions listed above is - Yes! Do you agree? If not, why not?

The idea that "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" can be interpreted to mean sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth is hard to swallow. Ellen wrote:

"But we desire to enter heaven, for there, there is no disappointment, no sorrow, no sin, no one who shall say, "I am sick." There, there is no burial train, no mourning, no death, no parting, no broken hearts; and Jesus is there, peace is there. {ST, February 8, 1892 par. 4}

If, as you say, sin and death will continue to play out in the New Earth, why, then, did Ellen say, There will be "no sin . . . no disappointment . . . no parting"?