{"id":170,"date":"2026-07-13T18:20:23","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T16:20:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/2026\/07\/13\/a-bukas-faja-es-a-felemelkedes-faja\/"},"modified":"2026-09-25T19:42:34","modified_gmt":"2026-09-25T17:42:34","slug":"the-tree-of-fall-and-the-tree-of-ascension","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/2026\/07\/13\/a-bukas-faja-es-a-felemelkedes-faja\/","title":{"rendered":"The Tree of the Fall and the Tree of Ascent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eve and Zacchaeus on the same tree<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Soul4you \u00b7 spiritual reflection \u00b7 reading time: approx. 6 minutes<\/em><\/p>\n

There is a tree that ripens from the inside.<\/p>\n

Its flower is not visible from the outside. It turns inwards, envelops itself, and bears fruit within its own enclosed space. Anyone who enters \u2014 a wasp, a bird, a human gaze \u2014 is no longer the same as when they left this place.<\/p>\n

This tree is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once at the very beginning of human history. And once as perhaps the most beautiful symbol of repentance.<\/p>\n

And perhaps it\u2019s the same tree.<\/p>\n

Eve's Tree<\/h2>\n

Western iconography is full of apples. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was an apple.<\/p>\n

The Hebrew text simply says \u201eperi\u201d: fruit. In a general sense. The image of the \u201eapple\u201d became established in the Latin-speaking West during the Middle Ages \u2014 partly due to the pun between the Latin words malum (\u201ebad\u201d) and m\u0101lum (\u201eapple\u201d), and partly because the original meaning of the Old French word pomme was \u201efruit\u201d, and it was only later that it came to refer specifically to \u2018apple\u2019. According to researchers specialising in visual identification, it first appears in 12th-century French art.<\/em><\/p>\n

Jewish tradition took a different course.<\/p>\n

In Talmud Berachot 40a, three rabbis debate what sort of tree the Tree of Knowledge actually was:<\/p>\n

According to Rabbi Meir, grapes \u2014 because \u201enothing has brought as much woe and trouble upon mankind as wine\u201d (referring to Noah\u2019s drunkenness).<\/p>\n

According to Rabbi Jehuda, it is wheat \u2014 because \u201ea child cannot call out to his father and mother until he has tasted the flavour of grain\u201d.<\/p>\n

According to Rabbi Nehemiah, a fig tree.<\/p>\n

Rabbi Nehemiah\u2019s argument is simple: when Adam and Eve realised they were naked, they made themselves coverings from fig leaves (Gen 3:7) \u2014 presumably plucked from the tree that was closest to them. In other words: the Tree of Knowledge itself.<\/p>\n

The Talmud (Berachot 40a) summarises Rabbi Nehemiah\u2019s argument in a single sentence \u2014 and Rashi, the 11th-century commentator, elaborates on this in his commentary on Genesis 3:7:<\/p>\n

\u201eThrough the very thing in which they sinned, they were restored.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Rashi on Genesis 3:7 (free translation; original English: \u201eWith that which they had sinned, they were rectified\u201d \u2014 Chabad.org)<\/em><\/p>\n

The tree that brought me down. The tree that gave me shelter. One and the same.<\/p>\n

The tree that ripens from the inside out<\/h2>\n

It is no coincidence that botany fits in here.<\/p>\n

A fig is not a fruit in the traditional sense. It is a syconium \u2014 an inflorescence that has turned inwards. The flowers do not bloom on the outside, but inside the fig, in an enclosed space. The pollinating wasp enters through a tiny opening, loses its wings, and carries out its task inside.<\/em><\/p>\n

What looks like a ripe fruit on the outside is a whole hidden world on the inside.<\/p>\n

Keep this picture, as you\u2019ll need it later.<\/p>\n

Zacchaeus\u2019s Tree<\/h2>\n

More than a thousand years later. In a different land. A different person.<\/p>\n

A chief tax collector is standing on the edge of the crowd in Jericho. He is rich. Everyone hates him. He knows the crowd won\u2019t make way for him. And he is small.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s he doing?<\/p>\n

He climbs a tree.<\/p>\n

The Hungarian translation of the Bible by the St Stephen Society is very revealing in this respect. Luke 19:3\u20135 reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201eHe wanted to see Jesus face to face, but he couldn\u2019t because of the crowd, as he was a short man. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree so that he might see him, as Jesus was due to pass that way. When Jesus reached that spot, he looked up and called out to him: \u00bbZacchaeus, come down quickly! I must stay at your house today.\u00ab\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Luke 19:3\u20135 \u2014 St Stephen\u2019s Society Bible (szentiras.hu)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Hungarian text therefore refers directly to the fig tree as \u201efig\u201d, whereas the Greek original calls it *sykomora\u00eda* and the Latin Vulgate *sycomorus*. The entry in the *Hungarian Catholic Encyclopaedia* is also unambiguous: the Hungarian names for the sycomore are \u2018strawberry fig tree\u2019 and \u2018wild fig tree\u2019; its Latin name is Ficus sycomorus, and it belongs to the Moraceae family, within the genus Ficus \u2014 the same family as the common fig (Ficus carica). Two sister species, the same syconium structure, the same logic of internal ripening.<\/em><\/p>\n

Everyone else who wants to see Jesus goes over to him. Zacchaeus climbs up. Above him.<\/p>\n

And Jesus looks up.<\/p>\n

\u201eZacchaeus, come down quickly! I must stay at your house today.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Luke 19:5 \u2014 The St Stephen\u2019s Society Bible<\/em><\/p>\n

The man climbed the tree to get a better view. He\u2019s now coming down from the tree because he\u2019s been spotted.<\/p>\n

Two gestures, one arc<\/h2>\n

Now place the two pictures side by side.<\/p>\n

Eve brought something back from the tree \u2014 fruit, knowledge.<\/p>\n

Zacchaeus made his way towards the tree \u2014 he wanted to see.<\/p>\n

Eve wanted to know. Zacchaeus wanted to see someone. Both are manifestations of the same human desire: to discover what had hitherto been out of reach.<\/p>\n

And if Rabbi Nehemiah is right \u2014 if the Tree of Knowledge really was a fig tree \u2014 then Eve and Zacchaeus were, symbolically speaking, standing on the very same tree. Botanically speaking, they belong to the same genus, Ficus. Two sister species. One family of trees.<\/p>\n

A tree. Two people. Two directions.<\/p>\n

The complete sheet.<\/p>\n

There was no error<\/h2>\n

Here comes the twist \u2013 one that\u2019s easy to miss when reading as usual.<\/p>\n

If the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Repentance are one and the same tree, then the Fall was not a mistake. It was a beginning.<\/p>\n

The Christian tradition has recognised this for centuries: felix culpa \u2014 \u201ea blessed sin\u201d. The Exsultet hymn of the Easter Vigil sings: \u201eO happy fault, which has won for us such a great and glorious Saviour!\u201d From St Augustine through the medieval liturgy to today\u2019s Catholic rite, this idea remains a constant: without the Fall, there is no Resurrection.<\/em><\/p>\n

Without the fall, there is no Zacchaeus. Without being cast down, there is no ascent. Without setting out, there is nowhere to return to.<\/p>\n

As the Talmud (Berachot 40a) records Rabbi Nehemiah\u2019s argument \u2014 and as Rashi elaborates in his commentary on Genesis 3:7: \u201eThrough that by which they sinned, they were restored.\u201d This is not a correction of the mistake \u2014 it is the closing of the circle.<\/p>\n

Eve set out on the journey of human consciousness. Zacchaeus showed how that same arc comes full circle. Not where it began \u2014 but where the tree finally reaches you.<\/p>\n

Your fig tree<\/h2>\n

Have there been situations in your life where, as \u00c9va, you cut something off that perhaps you shouldn\u2019t have?<\/p>\n

A decision. A gesture. A word that has haunted me ever since.<\/p>\n

And are there times when, like Zacchaeus, you\u2019ve climbed above the crowd to see what lies beneath the surface? Times when you\u2019ve adopted an awkward position, braving people\u2019s stares, just to get closer to something you couldn\u2019t reach any other way?<\/p>\n

Both are your fig trees. It\u2019s the same tree.<\/p>\n

The difference is not that one is a failure and the other a success. The difference is maturity.<\/p>\n

Eve\u2019s moment was a touch of wood, which set the journey in motion. Zacchaeus\u2019s moment was the realisation that the fruit had ripened, when the journey came to an end.<\/p>\n

The tree is always there. Every single moment. The only question is when you happen to be there at the very moment when the fruit has ripened inside.<\/p>\n

Internal flowering<\/h2>\n

Go back to the fig.<\/p>\n

The flower is not visible from the outside. The fruit is a hidden space that brings about change within itself.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re just like that.<\/p>\n

Your \u2018Eve moments\u2019 and your \u2018Zacchaeus moments\u2019 together bring about a process of maturation that isn\u2019t visible from the outside. No one can tell you when you\u2019re ready. Not even you always know.<\/p>\n

But the tree carries on working.<\/p>\n

And one day, the wasp enters. The moment arrives. And it turns out that the entire arc \u2014 from the breakaway to the ascent \u2014 was a single process.<\/p>\n

A tree. A person. A path.<\/p>\n

And the ripening, which takes its time.<\/p>\n

\u2022 \u2022 \u2022<\/p>\n

Sources<\/h2>\n

\u2022 St Stephen\u2019s Society Bible \u2014 Luke 19 (Zacchaeus) \u2014 https:\/\/szentiras.hu\/SZIT\/Lk19<\/p>\n

\u2022 St Stephen\u2019s Society Bible \u2014 Genesis 3 \u2014 https:\/\/szentiras.hu\/SZIT\/Ter3<\/p>\n

\u2022 Hungarian Catholic Encyclopaedia \u2014 sycamore \u2014 http:\/\/lexikon.katolikus.hu\/S\/szikomorfa.html<\/p>\n

\u2022 Sefaria \u2014 Talmud Berachot 40a (the rabbinic debate on the Tree of Knowledge; English\u2013Hebrew) \u2014 https:\/\/www.sefaria.org\/Berakhot.40a<\/p>\n

\u2022 Chabad.org \u2014 Rashi\u2019s commentary on Genesis 3:7 (English) \u2014 https:\/\/www.chabad.org\/library\/bible_cdo\/aid\/8167\/jewish\/Chapter-3.htm<\/p>\n

\u2022 Wikipedia \u2014 Forbidden fruit (the historical background to the \u2018malum\u2019\/\u2018pomum\u2019 debate) \u2014 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Forbidden_fruit<\/p>\n

\u2022 Wikipedia \u2014 Ficus sycomorus (botany) \u2014 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ficus_sycomorus<\/p>\n

\u2022 Wikipedia \u2014 Common fig \/ Ficus carica and the structure of the syconium \u2014 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Common_fig<\/p>\n

With love,
\nGeorgina
\nSoul4you \u00b7 soul4you.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00c9va \u00e9s Z\u00e1keus ugyanazon a f\u00e1n Soul4you \u00b7 spiritu\u00e1lis elm\u00e9ly\u00fcl\u00e9s \u00b7 olvas\u00e1si id\u0151: kb. 6 perc Van egy fa, ami bel\u00fcl \u00e9rlel. A vir\u00e1ga nem l\u00e1tszik k\u00edv\u00fclr\u0151l. Befel\u00e9 fordul, beburkolja \u00f6nmag\u00e1t, \u00e9s a saj\u00e1t z\u00e1rt ter\u00e9ben hozza meg a gy\u00fcm\u00f6lcs\u00f6t. Aki bel\u00e9p \u2014 egy dar\u00e1zs, egy mad\u00e1r, egy emberi tekintet \u2014 m\u00e1r nem ugyanaz, mint […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":158,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s4y_en_tartalom":"

Eve and Zacchaeus in a shared symbolic landscape<\/em><\/p>\n\n

There is something about a fig that invites an inward reading. Its flowers develop inside an enclosing structure called a syconium, rather than opening visibly along the outside of a branch. (University of Queensland, \u201cWhat's inside a fig?\u201d<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n

What appears to us as a single fruit contains a hidden flowering. I want to keep that image beside two biblical scenes: Eve reaching towards fruit, and Zacchaeus climbing a tree.<\/p>\n\n

I am not claiming that they stand beside the same literal tree. I am asking what becomes visible when the two stories meet within a symbolic reading.<\/p>\n\n

Eve's tree<\/h2>\n\n

Genesis does not identify the forbidden fruit as an apple, or name the species of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:16\u201317<\/a>; Genesis 3:1\u20136<\/a>) The fig enters explicitly when the man and woman sew fig leaves together after recognising their nakedness. (Genesis 3:7<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n

That detail has invited more than one interpretation. In the rabbinic discussion preserved in Berakhot 40a, Rabbi Meir identifies the tree as a vine, Rabbi Yehuda as wheat, and Rabbi Nehemiah as a fig tree. (Berakhot 40a<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n

Rabbi Nehemiah's reasoning is not simply that the nearest leaves would have been convenient: he connects the thing through which the wrongdoing occurred with the thing through which a measure of repair became possible. (Berakhot 40a<\/a>) Rashi's commentary on Genesis 3:7 also brings the fig leaves into that relationship between transgression and repair. (Rashi on Genesis 3:7<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n

This is one strand of Jewish interpretation, not an identification on which the biblical text or all Jewish readers agree. Its particular movement is what draws my attention.<\/p>\n\n

The image does not end with the reaching hand. The same kind of tree can also enter the story of covering what has become exposed.<\/p>\n\n

For me, this suggests something more complex than a simple division between an object that harms and an entirely different object that restores. A relationship with the same thing can change.<\/p>\n\n

The hidden flowering<\/h2>\n\n

Inside a fig's syconium, many small flowers develop, with an opening through which pollinating fig wasps can enter. (University of Queensland, \u201cWhat's inside a fig?\u201d<\/a>) I take that botanical structure as an image, not as evidence for the spiritual interpretation that follows.<\/p>\n\n

It allows me to contemplate a change that does not announce itself on the surface. Something may be ripening before either we or the people around us can recognise its form.<\/p>\n\n

I do not need to imagine a person physically entering the fig, or turn a wasp's life into a universal spiritual rule. The inward flowering is already enough.<\/p>\n\n

What if growth is not always the addition of something conspicuous? What if part of it happens where we cannot yet display it?<\/p>\n\n

Zacchaeus' tree<\/h2>\n\n

Luke describes Zacchaeus as a wealthy chief tax collector who wants to see Jesus but cannot do so because of the crowd and his short stature. (Luke 19:1\u20133<\/a>) He runs ahead and climbs a sycamore tree; Jesus then looks up, addresses him by name and tells him to come down because he is to stay at his house. (Luke 19:4\u20135<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n

The scene turns on two movements. Zacchaeus goes up in order to see; he comes down after being seen.<\/p>\n\n

The tree traditionally identified in this passage is the sycamore fig, Ficus sycomorus, rather than the common fig, Ficus carica. (Magyar Katolikus Lexikon, \u201cszikomorfa\u201d<\/a>) I therefore speak of a connection within fig imagery, not of proof that the two scenes involve the same species.<\/p>\n\n

The distinction does not weaken the symbolic question. It prevents a botanical relationship from being asked to prove more than it can.<\/p>\n\n

In my reading, climbing also becomes an image of changing one's position. When the familiar place offers no view, Zacchaeus does something that makes another encounter possible.<\/p>\n\n

The story does not end with a private spiritual feeling: Zacchaeus speaks of giving to the poor and making restitution where he has defrauded anyone. (Luke 19:8<\/a>) That practical turn matters to me because a changed perspective also concerns how we live with others.<\/p>\n\n

Two gestures, one arc<\/h2>\n\n

Eve sees that the tree's fruit is desirable for gaining wisdom and takes it; Zacchaeus moves towards a tree because he wants to see Jesus. (Genesis 3:6<\/a>; Luke 19:3\u20134<\/a>) I place these gestures beside each other without claiming that their intentions or consequences are identical.<\/p>\n\n

One reaches towards what seems capable of giving knowledge. The other changes his position to make an encounter possible.<\/p>\n\n

If I follow Rabbi Nehemiah's fig-tree interpretation, the two scenes enter a shared symbolic landscape. That \u201cif\u201d matters: it leaves the interpretive choice visible.<\/p>\n\n

Within that landscape, I see departure and return. I see the urge to possess what promises knowledge, and the willingness to become available to an encounter that may change us.<\/p>\n\n

The stories do not have to become interchangeable for the connection to be fruitful. Their differences are part of the movement.<\/p>\n\n

A beginning need not be the final verdict<\/h2>\n\n

My own metaphysical reading refuses to make the Fall the final truth about humanity. I see it within a larger movement in which estrangement need not be permanent and the way towards recognition remains open.<\/p>\n\n

Christian liturgy holds its own paradox of restoration in the Exsultet, the Easter proclamation that calls Adam's fault \u201chappy\u201d in relation to the Redeemer. (The Exsultet<\/a>) I hear a resonance with the possibility of a story that does not end in the fall, while respecting that the hymn speaks specifically of redemption through Christ.<\/p>\n\n

I do not take that language as permission to call every wrongdoing good. Nor do I turn a Christian proclamation into proof of my own metaphysical account.<\/p>\n\n

My conviction about a larger movement from estrangement towards recognition does not follow as a logical deduction from two kinds of fig tree. Botany cannot prove that a harmful choice was right, or that suffering was necessary.<\/p>\n\n

What the image offers me is more modest and more personal. A place associated with shame can also become a place from which another movement begins.<\/p>\n\n

That does not erase responsibility. If a decision has harmed someone, discovering meaning afterwards does not remove the need for honesty or repair.<\/p>\n\n

Nor must a person who has been harmed decide that the injury was a gift. The possibility of growth belongs to them; it is not a justification available to whoever caused the harm.<\/p>\n\n

In my reading, Eve and Zacchaeus help me hold both truths. A beginning can carry consequences, and those consequences need not close every way forward.<\/p>\n\n

Your fig tree<\/h2>\n\n

Are there moments in your life when you reached for something and only later understood what the decision meant? Perhaps a word, a promise or a choice continues to ask something of you.<\/p>\n\n

And are there moments when you accepted an unfamiliar position because remaining where you were would not allow you to see? Perhaps you risked looking awkward, admitted that you did not know, or approached a conversation differently.<\/p>\n\n

I am not asking you to decide that every mistake had to happen. I am asking whether your relationship with what happened can still change.<\/p>\n\n

The movement might involve an apology. It might involve a boundary, a new understanding or the willingness to stop defending a decision that no longer feels true.<\/p>\n\n

Sometimes the same part of life returns, but we do not meet it in the same way. The difference is not that the past has vanished; something within us has ripened.<\/p>\n\n

Flowering inwardly<\/h2>\n\n

Return for a moment to the hidden flowers of the fig. The image reminds me that an inward change does not need to be immediately visible to be worth tending.<\/p>\n\n

No one else can set a perfect timetable for your recognition. You may not know yourself exactly when something has begun to change.<\/p>\n\n

For me, the reaching hand and the climbed tree belong to one contemplative arc. Not proof of a hidden botanical code, but a way to imagine how a life can move from grasping towards meeting.<\/p>\n\n

The tree remains an image of that possibility. What matters is how we come to it, and what we are ready to receive.<\/p>\n\n

With love,
Georgina
Soul4you<\/p>","_s4y_en_cim":"The Tree of the Fall and the Tree of Ascent","_s4y_en_kivonat":"Eve and Zacchaeus in a shared symbolic landscape: a personal reflection on reaching, seeing and inner change.","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-spiritualis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":182,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170\/revisions\/182"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/soul4you.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}