# command or allowance in Genesis 2:16



## smackaliley

Hi,  Once again I need help from people with knowledge of Old Testament Hebrew.  In Genesis 2:16, there is a phrase usually translated into English as "may freely eat" as if it is just an optional freedom or allowance to eat from any of the trees.  Based on the original Hebrew, is it possible or even likely that there was actually a command to eat from every tree(other than the forbidden tree mentioned in verse 17)? -not that the command had to be followed in any particular time frame, but could there have been a command to make sure and get it done at some point.  Not only is the word "commanded" (in many English versions) used earlier in the same verse, but it would line up with other theological theories if this was more of a command to eat from all than an allowance to eat from any.  Can anyone confirm or refute this?  I know this is a strange question, but it has a purpose, but the explanation, I suppose, would go beyond what this forum is for.  Thanks for your help.


----------



## Nunty

To make things easier for the Hebrew-readers here, this is the verse in Hebrew:
ויצו ה' אלהים על-האדם לאמור: מכל עצ-הגן אכל-תאכל

A fairly literal,  traditional translation: God the Lord commanded Adam, saying: From every tree of the garden you shall surely eat. (The next verse, of course, is a continuation of the same utterance and contains the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.)

Note: The construction: "you shall surely [verb]" is one common way of rendering the emphatic doubling found in expressions like "אכל תאכל" (you shall surely eat) or "מות יומת" (he shall surely die).

This double construction is often used (I cannot say "always" because I am not enough of a scholar) to indicate an inevitable consequence. I do not read it as part of the command.


----------



## scriptum

Smackaliley, your question reminded me of my late grandmother who used to actually order me to eat semolina.
The verbal form used in the cited verse is described by Gesenius as "emphatic imperative". It can be interpreted both as order and permission.
Sometimes I wonder whether our ancestors really saw any difference between the two. In this regard, the text of the Scripture is rather enigmatic. E. g., people are _ordered_ to rejoice...​


----------



## origumi

scriptum said:


> The verbal form used in the cited verse is described by Gesenius as "emphatic imperative". It can be interpreted both as order and permission.


But then should מוֹת תָּמוּת in the next sentence be understood as emphatic imperative? order or permission? Although this form is often used in imperatives, I prefer Nunty's version of emphasis not necessarly related to imperative and may be of the type that cannot be avoided.


----------



## smackaliley

Thanks all for your comments.  That helps.  I want to make sure I'm understanding the general consensus of everyone though.  So, there is not necessarily a command, but there is a strong statement that indicates that all of the trees will eventually and surely be eaten from (and would have, had they not disobeyed and eaten of the forbidden tree, thereby losing access to the garden).  Would this be accurate, or have I strayed from understanding your answers?  Thanks again, and please post any more thoughts on it as well.


----------



## origumi

If אכול תאכל is taken as command - מכל עץ הגן can be understood as "all of the trees". That is, "you must eat from all of the trees".

If אכול תאכל is taken as permission - מכל עץ הגן is more likely "any of the trees". That is, "you may eat from any of the trees".


----------



## OsehAlyah

scriptum said:


> Smackaliley, your question reminded me of my late grandmother who used to actually order me to eat semolina.​



 <off-topic>It's actually Farina which is also called Cream of  Wheat or in Russian Манка.
Semolina is a type of wheat from which dried pasta is  made.</off-topic> I can't believe you didn't like it as a kid. To this day I keep some in my pantry. ​


smackaliley said:


> Thanks all for your comments.  That helps.  I want to make sure I'm understanding the general consensus of everyone though.  So, there is not necessarily a command, but there is a strong statement that indicates that all of the trees will eventually and surely be eaten from (and would have, had they not disobeyed and eaten of the forbidden tree, thereby losing access to the garden).  Would this be accurate, or have I strayed from understanding your answers?  Thanks again, and please post any more thoughts on it as well.


Just an FYI my knowledge of Hebrew is exceedingly primitive. However, I wanted to point out that the Hebrew word כל often translates to "any", which then renders the sentence as "From any tree [of] The Garden eating eat". Also note that the word tree is singular.
I'm not sure if this is helpful or more confusing. 

Additionally, as was already pointed out, the phrase you are trying to translate is *not* a complete sentence from that chapter of the Scripture. It is merely the first part of the sentence. The reason I mention this is because if you don't take in the whole sentence then the translation will be out of context.
Here's the complete sentence:
מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ
My approximate literal translation, that someone will hopefully correct:
"From any tree [of] The Garden eating eat, but from tree of knowledge [of] Good and Evil [you] will/shall not eat from it."

Words is square brackets [] are implied and are not actually in the text.
HTH


----------



## hadronic

Gesenius gives a long list of nuances that this construction can have, and says at §113.p, about that particular statement :
"The infinitive absolute [can also be] used to give emphasis to an antithesis [...]. Hence also as permissive, Gen 2:16 אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל _thou mayest freely eat but_ (so that verse 16 is antithesis to verse 17) ; or concessive [...]"


----------



## dkarjala

To add to the previous post, Jouon-Muraoka lists the 'eat' phrase as having the sense of permission and the 'die' phrase as affirmation.

I think what we need to keep in mind is that in all the uses, it is distinguishing possibilities. I think it is helpful to look at it as _counteracting _a contrary possibility.

As an affirmation, it is there to remove any doubt that the person might have to die...they will, no exceptions. As a permission-type phrase, it is there to answer the internal question of the listener "can I really eat from this tree, or this one, or this one?" etc. In other words, I think we can unite both meanings by assuming the infinitive absolute construction _erases _doubts and possibilities contrary to the action of the verb.


----------

