Chapter 15
Seals of the Covenant
438. Whence did the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil derive its name?
Not because it possessed or could impart the knowledge of good and evil, but at first
sacramentally, as it was the sign of man's probation and the monitor to warn him lest he
should know evil by experience as he already knew good, and afterward, from the event,
as from eating its fruit man learnt how much good he had lost and evil he had incurred.
439. Why was this tree forbidden to man?
As a peculiar test of his love, as the obligation to obedience here did not result from
anything in the nature of the thing prohibited but from the command of God merely. This
was proper also to remind man that though [he was] constituted lord of the world, he was
not independent, and by having an external symbol his obedience or rebellion would be
rendered more obvious.
440. Why was the Tree of Life so called?
Bellarmine and others of the papists suppose it derived its name from its inherent power
of conferring life, but like the tree of knowledge, it more probably received its title from
its symbolical signification, its being the symbol of man's promised immortality. It was
also a type of eternal life acquired and conferred by Jesus, and of Jesus Himself who is
"the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God" (Rev. 2:7).
441. Had it any inherent power of communicating or preserving life?
No, except that it might have been very refreshing and nutritious.
442. What was its use?
See in answer #440.
443. Why was man prohibited from use of this tree after the fall?
Because by sin he forfeited his claim to the blessing signified by this sign. The phrase
"lest he eat and live forever" [Gen. 3:22] may refer to Adam's folly in expecting life from
eating what had been prohibited.
444. If man had continued in obedience, would he have been translated to heaven?
It is most probable he would.40
445. What became of the earthly paradise?
Many of the popish writers believe it to be still in being in some unknown land and that
Enoch and Elijah are there, whom they consider as the two witnesses who are come
against Antichrist [Rev. 11:3]. For this, however, there is not the least foundation. It no
doubt suffered the common destruction by the waters of the deluge if it had not long
before that period ceased to be distinguishable.
40 [For a full and persuasive defense of this majority position of Reformed theology from its classical era, see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:583–86, 8th Topic, Question 6.]