The Tree of Knowledge is just an ordinary tree
The Lord God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.
In the story of the Fall, God forbids eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Until recently, I took it for granted that God forbids eating the fruit because of the knowledge the fruit imparts.
In my defense, there are some important Christian theologians who interpret the story in a similar way, such as St. Theophilus of Antioch [1, Chapter 25] and St. Gregory of Nazianzus [2, Section 8].
However, according to other luminaries such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo, the correct interpretation is the other way around. The fruit imparts knowledge only because the fruit is forbidden!
When I learned this idea, it blew my mind. After rereading the story and studying the matter a bit, I buy it. The story makes way more sense to me now. In the rest of this blog post, I'll elaborate about how I currently understand the story, now that I've gotten some help from Chrysostom and Augustine (and others). Disclaimer: I am not an expert.
Why God forbids eating the fruit
Everything God makes is "very good" (Genesis 1:31), including the Tree of Knowledge. Augustine says, "they were forbidden the use of a tree, which, if it had not been for the prohibition, they might have used without suffering any evil result whatever" [3, Book II, Chapter 35]. The tree's fruit is not poisonous or magical. In fact, I figure the Tree of Knowledge is just a completely ordinary tree that gains significance only because it is forbidden.
God forbids eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because He wants to forbid something, not because the tree is bad or dangerous. Chrysostom writes, "The loving Lord, you see, instructing the human being in the beginning and from the very outset, and wanting to teach him that he has a creator and craftsman who produces all visible realities and shapes him as well, wished to reveal to him his own dominion through this slight command... he bids him stay away from the one tree, setting a severe penalty for transgression so that he may be aware he is under his dominion and along with everything else is a partaker of his generosity" [4, Homily 16]. Similarly, Augustine writes, "It was proper that man, placed in a state of dependence upon the Lord God, should be given some prohibition, so that obedience would be the virtue by which he would please his Lord" [5, Book 8, Chapter 6]. The commandment to not eat the fruit is a kind of test. It can be compared to the test that Abraham faces when God tells him to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:1-19).
How Adam and Eve learn that they are naked
But the snake said to the woman: "You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil." The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
If the fruit is just ordinary fruit, then why do Adam and Eve realize they are naked? As I understand it, the answer is as follows.
Before they eat the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve don't know they are naked, but only because they've never considered the concept of clothing. Hypothetically, if an angel were to explain clothing to Adam and Eve and ask whether they were wearing any, they would easily answer no. In such a case, they would learn that they are naked, but they wouldn't be uncomfortable about it. Before Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, there isn't anything wrong with going through life naked.
However, the act of sinning corrupts Adam and Eve's relationships with their bodies. "I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind" (Romans 7:23). Consequently, for the first time, Adam and Eve feel a need for their bodies to not be seen.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Because they feel a need for their bodies to not be seen, Adam and Eve conceive of the idea of clothing. Now that they have the idea of clothes, they know they are not wearing clothes, i.e., they know they are naked. Thus, the act of sinning is what opens Adam and Eve's eyes, not anything in the fruit per se. Any sin would have done it.
What Adam and Eve learn about good and evil
After Adam and Eve confess to eating the forbidden fruit, God describes their punishments. Then God says, "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil!" (Genesis 3:22) God is confirming that one of the snake's statements has come true — but only in a terrible and ironic way. When Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, they learn the painful consequences of sin, which is some "knowledge of good and evil" that they didn't have before. Thus, they do gain knowledge of good and evil, but only because they sin and are punished, not because the fruit has miraculous powers.
I find the story clever and maybe even a little funny. It reminds me of the story of King Croesus of Lydia. According to legend, the Oracle of Delphi told Croesus that if he attacked Persia, he would destroy a great empire. Croesus therefore attacked, expecting to destroy the Persian empire. Instead, he was defeated and his own empire was destroyed, ironically fulfilling the Oracle's prophesy.
Why the tree is called the Tree of Knowledge
St. Thomas Aquinas writes that the tree is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil "because, after eating of it, man was to learn, by experience of the consequent punishment, the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of rebellion" [6, I-102-1]. Augustine emphasizes that the tree "was named not from the apples or fruit that grew on it but from what had followed after it had been touched against God's command" [5, Book 8, Chapter 6].
Those explanations are especially plausible given other Biblical names. As Chrysostom points out, it is "the way with Sacred Scripture to name places from the things that happen, wherever it is they happen" [4, Homily 16]. For example, another tree is named later in the book of Genesis: "Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died. She was buried under the oak below Bethel, and so it was named Allon-bacuth" (Genesis 35:8). The name "Allon-bacuth" can be translated "Oak of Weeping." Clearly, the oak's name should not be interpreted to mean that the tree has cursed acorns that magically cause people to weep.
Still, the Tree of Knowledge could have been called something else. Why is it called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil rather than the Tree of Obedience, for example, or the Forbidden Tree? One reason can be found in the writings of Pope St. John Paul II: "By forbidding man to 'eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', God makes it clear that man does not originally possess such 'knowledge' as something properly his own, but only participates in it by the light of natural reason and of Divine Revelation, which manifest to him the requirements and the promptings of eternal wisdom" [7].
The knowledge itself is not forbidden
I would like to emphasize that God never forbids Adam and Eve from having knowledge of good and evil. I would argue that it is praiseworthy to try to better understand the nature of good and evil. For example, when Solomon asks for "a listening heart to judge your people and to distinguish between good and evil" (1 Kings 3:9), God is "pleased by Solomon's request" (1 Kings 3:10). When Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, they plunge humanity into an age of sin, pain, and death, but a silver lining is that at least they learn a lesson. The Tree of Knowledge is named for that silver lining.
Acknowledgments
I thank Jackson Hallza, Julianna Hallza, and Alicia Torres Hoza for especially helpful comments on a draft of this blog post. I read AI-generated reviews of drafts of this blog post as part of my writing process.
References
[1] Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book II. Circa 180.
[2] Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 45: The Second Oration on Easter. Circa 383.
[3] Augustine of Hippo. A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants. 412. English translation: Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 1886-1889.
[4] John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis. 388. English translation: Robert C. Hill. Homilies on Genesis 1-17 (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 74). 2010.
[5] Augustine of Hippo. The literal meaning of Genesis. 415. English translation: John Hammond Taylor. St. Augustine: The literal meaning of Genesis (Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 42). 1982.
[6] Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. 1274. English translation: Fathers of the English Dominican Province. The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition. 1920.
[7] John Paul II. Veritatis splendor. 1993.