The assertion that Adam was forbidden only one thing implies that the central prohibition was less a normative prescription (a list of many prescriptions) and more a symbolic essence that expresses the dual problem of human existence.

The Single Prohibition: A Test of Conscious Divine Freedom

The assertion that Adam was forbidden only one thing implies that the central prohibition was less a normative prescription (a list of many prescriptions) and more a symbolic essence that expresses the dual problem of human existence. On one hand, this prohibition does not indicate the denial of knowledge as such, but rather that in a state of immediate union with God, the knowledge of good and evil had no practical benefit. As explained in one of the sources:

"One must feed on God so that in freedom one may become divine. And it was precisely this personal effort that Adam failed to perform.

What, then, is the meaning of the Divine prohibition?

It poses a dual problem: the problem of the knowledge of good and evil and the problem of prohibition itself. Neither knowledge in general nor the knowledge of good and evil in particular is evil in itself. But this very differentiation presupposes a lower existential level, a state of the fall. While Adam remained in union with God and fulfilled His will, while he fed on His presence, such differentiation was unhelpful."
(source: link txt)

On the other hand, the Divine prohibition was a test designed to awaken in Adam a conscious freedom of choice. This prohibition was a call to transition from unconscious existence in union with God to conscious love and obedience, where the voluntary consent to limit personal desires acquired profound meaning. Thus, it became a test of true freedom and the ability to love God without coercion. As further clarified:

"That is why the Divine prohibition relates not so much to the knowledge of good and evil (since evil did not exist, or existed only as a risk—the risk of Adam violating the prohibition), but rather to a voluntary test intended to make the first person’s freedom conscious. Adam had to leave behind childlike unconsciousness by consenting out of love to obey God. The prohibition was not arbitrary..."
(source: link txt)

These ideas give rise to theological discussions about the nature of sin, free will, and the concept of responsibility. The point is that the prohibition was not meant to limit knowledge per se, but to effect the transition from the state of original innocence to a conscious choice between good and evil. Thus, the discussions focus on the following:
1. The nature of the prohibition – as a challenge for mankind, allowing one to move beyond automatism and attain freedom through love and obedience.
2. The duality of the prohibition – on one hand, it warns of the consequences of abandoning union with God, and on the other, it teaches that knowledge itself is not evil if it exists in a state of closeness with the Divine.
3. Freedom and love – the prohibition is seen as a call for true love for God to manifest through the voluntary limitation of selfish desires, enabling the possibility of grace and spiritual perfection.

Thus, the interpretation of this idea shows that Adam’s single prohibition becomes not merely a rule but a fundamental test that determines the essence of human freedom, the relationship with the Divine, and the ways to comprehend good and evil through conscious choice.