Like Jeff Popick, we have struggled over why God would have a fruit tree as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  If it was only to test human obedience, then why did it also seem to cause a violation of the "blood covenant"?  It just didn't make sense.

However, if the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was indeed flesh, then it answers all the questions concerning the blood covenant.  The problem is that the Bible only mentions "fruit" and not "flesh", but if we assume that the word "fruit" means the "product of", such as "the fruit of the spirit", or "you will know them by their fruit", then perhaps the fruit of the knowledge of evil is really flesh.

As God's created "son", Adam inherited God's creation, but when he ate of the fruit (flesh) he in essence sold his inheritance to the devil.  Furthermore, the devil seems to be empowered by the shedding of blood.

And, since the Bible tells us that the soul is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), by disobeying God, and accepting the fruit (flesh) of the forbidden tree, instead of using his dominion to defeat the powers of evil, Adam destroyed the the peace of Eden, and sold his soul to the devil, so to speak.

This would also answer the question of where did the skin come from that God used to clothe Adam and Eve; it was the skin of the slain animal. (Genesis 3:21)  This story also reminds us of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner for in both cases the main characters wore the animal as a reminder of their evil act.

Go on to: Comments by Juli - 16 May 2008
Return to: Is There Logic To The Forbidden Fruit?