2 added luther etc.
source | link

I think we must take the trees as literal things but also symbolicliteral but also symbolic because of God's promises annexed to them.  The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death.  God's promises annexed to them. The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death. In other words Adam could never be allowed to eat from the tree of life so the concern is hypothetical only, God would never have allowed it.the concern is hypothetical only, God would never and could never, have allowed it. God is saying 'Now that Adam is a sinner he must not obtain eternal glory as a holy saint, reversing the effects of eating from the other tree.  No my judgment must stand, there are no second chances.  Adam must die as I warned him he would if he had sinned.  Adam can't work his way back into life but must be thrown out of the garden entirely.' If Adam could have eaten from the tree than according to the promise God annexed to it, Adam would have been born again against God's means of actually providing it, so it could never happen. If Adam had resisted sin and eaten from the tree of life than we would have all been born sinless and no Messiah would have been required.

The view that these trees are equal and opposites is common and the most congruent with scripture:

The situation with the tree of life I believe to have been wholly the same; not by its inherent character but through the efficacy of the Word was the tree life-giving. And so, because the Word was still attached to that tree, Adam would have been restored to his former life if he had eaten from it. (Luther's Works Vol 1, P227)

The Bible does not say one tree was 'big' causing death to soul and body and the other was 'tiny' only causing life to the body. They are equal symbols of the results of the covenant of works God made with Adam, obedience to eternal life, soul and body, or disobedience to eternal death, soul and body.

I think we must take the trees as literal things but also symbolic because of God's promises annexed to them.  The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death.  In other words Adam could never be allowed to eat from the tree of life so the concern is hypothetical only, God would never have allowed it. God is saying 'Now that Adam is a sinner he must not obtain eternal glory as a holy saint, reversing the effects of eating from the other tree.  No my judgment must stand, there are no second chances.  Adam must die as I warned him he would if he had sinned.  Adam can't work his way back into life but must be thrown out of the garden entirely.' If Adam could have eaten from the tree than according to the promise God annexed to it, Adam would have been born again against God's means of actually providing it, so it could never happen. If Adam had resisted sin and eaten from the tree of life than we would have all been born sinless and no Messiah would have been required.

I think we must take the trees as literal but also symbolic because of God's promises annexed to them. The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death. In other words Adam could never be allowed to eat from the tree of life so the concern is hypothetical only, God would never and could never, have allowed it. God is saying 'Now that Adam is a sinner he must not obtain eternal glory as a holy saint, reversing the effects of eating from the other tree.  No my judgment must stand, there are no second chances.  Adam must die as I warned him he would if he had sinned.  Adam can't work his way back into life but must be thrown out of the garden entirely.' If Adam could have eaten from the tree than according to the promise God annexed to it, Adam would have been born again against God's means of actually providing it, so it could never happen. If Adam had resisted sin and eaten from the tree of life than we would have all been born sinless and no Messiah would have been required.

The view that these trees are equal and opposites is common and the most congruent with scripture:

The situation with the tree of life I believe to have been wholly the same; not by its inherent character but through the efficacy of the Word was the tree life-giving. And so, because the Word was still attached to that tree, Adam would have been restored to his former life if he had eaten from it. (Luther's Works Vol 1, P227)

The Bible does not say one tree was 'big' causing death to soul and body and the other was 'tiny' only causing life to the body. They are equal symbols of the results of the covenant of works God made with Adam, obedience to eternal life, soul and body, or disobedience to eternal death, soul and body.

1
source | link

I think we must take the trees as literal things but also symbolic because of God's promises annexed to them.  The tree of life represented the case of Adam obtaining eternal life by obedience to God and in resisting the tree of death.  In other words Adam could never be allowed to eat from the tree of life so the concern is hypothetical only, God would never have allowed it. God is saying 'Now that Adam is a sinner he must not obtain eternal glory as a holy saint, reversing the effects of eating from the other tree.  No my judgment must stand, there are no second chances.  Adam must die as I warned him he would if he had sinned.  Adam can't work his way back into life but must be thrown out of the garden entirely.' If Adam could have eaten from the tree than according to the promise God annexed to it, Adam would have been born again against God's means of actually providing it, so it could never happen. If Adam had resisted sin and eaten from the tree of life than we would have all been born sinless and no Messiah would have been required.