Part III of the Western Series
How Western Beliefs Changed the Original Gospel Message
… Falling for the Fruit of Spiritual Adultery …
with the blessing of her spiritual father
God’s love and energies created Man* in His image and after His likeness, with a living soul, so that we could share in His divinity for all eternity. Did God then use the Serpent to trick Adam and Eve so He could banish them over a fruit? No mainstream Christianity endorses this, and yet, it is a frequently heard criticism of God that may stem from some Western “fire and brimstone” teachings that portray God as strict, unforgiving, even sadistic. However, a careful and balanced study of Genesis does not endorse this characterization of God. While the Orthodox Church affirms the reality of the Fall and the historicity of Adam and Eve, it also recognizes multiple levels of interpretation within the text, as seen in the writings of St. Irenaeus, St. Ephrem and others. These and other Fathers of the Church saw layers of meaning in Genesis 1-3, including literal, allegorical, symbolic and typological layers. We shall examine some of these below.
The Fall of Lucifer and his Role as Satan
“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
Adam and Eve were not the first to “fall.” When God created the Universe, He also created the incorporeal or bodiless beings – the angels. Because God is Love, these, too, had free will, including Lucifer (Light-bearer). Lucifer was an Archangel who, as his name implies, bore the Divine Light of God, and yet, for envy of God’s power and glory, he rebelled against Him and incited one third of the angels to do the same (Revelation 12:4). Not tempted by anyone, he became the inventor of pride and the architect of all evil by lusting after God’s glory. St. John the Apostle describes him as a great red dragon.
Behold, a great red dragon…His tail drew a third of the stars [angels] of heaven and drew them to the earth…And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So, the great dragon was cast out [from heaven], that serpent of old, called the Devil [Slanderer] and Satan [Adversary, Accuser, Antagonist], who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels [the demons] were cast out with him [emphasis mine]. (Revelation 12:3-9)
In Part II we explained that a single unit is in danger of becoming egocentric and devoid of love, since love can only exist in a relationship. By rejecting a loving relationship with God and seeking supremacy over Him, Lucifer became that single egocentric unit that embodied the epitome of pride, the cardinal sin that begets all other evils. Lucifer and his followers lost both their battle against God and their place in His heavenly Kingdom. They were cast out from Heaven to Earth as demons (Luke 10:17-18, Ephesians 6:11-12, 1 Peter 5:8, Revelation 12:7-9 & 20:10).
How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground…For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)
On earth, Lucifer, now Satan, is permitted by God to test Humanity’s* free will, in the guise of a serpent who claims to have special knowledge (gnosis); but in reality, he is the angry, jealous and vicious red dragon. According to Saint Andrew of Caesarea, the colour red denotes his bloodthirstiness and murderous intentions. He rejoices in blood shedding and the murder of people.1 The Lord, Himself, said, “he was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Having lost everything – the highest angelic position he once occupied in Heaven, and his war against God – would he not also envy Adam and Eve for having been blessed by God with the dominion of the whole earth? Furthermore, God created Humanity in His image and likeness for Deification, a heavenly state more glorious than Lucifer’s previous position. Humiliated, his injured pride demands revenge. He continues rebelling against God, by resolving to hijack and destroy God’s good creation, beginning with Humanity.
…be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians 6:10-12)
The Nature of Pre-Fallen Man
The name “Adam” (אדם, Hebrew meaning: person) is related to the Hebrew word “adama,” which means earth. Creating Man from dust connects Humanity to the earth, emphasizing that we are part of the natural world. Why did God create Adam from the dust of the earth? According to Saints John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea and other Church Fathers, our origin from dust reminds us of our human mortality and fosters humility to discourage the prideful temptation of equating oneself with God.
Then, by breathing into the dust, something He did not do when He created the plants and animals, God gave Adam not only a physical, but also a spiritual dimension, a soul, infused with divine life. In Man, we find the unique combination of the physical and the spiritual, earth and heaven. This prepares Mankind* for their intended destiny, which is not to die and return to the ground as happens with the animals, but to reach Theosis or Deification – union with God. Creating Man from earthly dust also associates him as a cultivator of the earth and as such, one who exercises dominion over creation.
Such a divine design benefits not only Man’s humility, but also that of the angels. When the basest and humblest of all lifeless matter, dust, is given form and life to create a new being that is destined by God for Deification, a glory that surpasses that of the bodiless angels, this discourages the temptation for any intelligent creature of God to pridefully say to the other, or even to God, “I am better than you,” as Lucifer had once done. Such was the humble beginning and the glorious destiny of Pre-fallen Man.
Some critics fault God for being unfair to Adam and Eve by allowing them to be tempted and then casting them out into a hostile world; but according to Orthodox teaching, before the Fall, Adam and Eve were not like us in nature and therefore less likely to sin. According to St. John of Damascus,
God made man without evil, upright, virtuous, free from pain and care, glorified with every virtue, adorned with all that is good, a second microcosm within the great world, another angel capable of worship, compounded of many things, surveying the visible creation and initiated into the mysteries of the realm of the mind, king over the things of the earth but subject to a higher King of the earth and of heaven, temporal and eternal, belonging to the realm of sight and the realm of mind, midway between greatness and lowliness, spirit and flesh…4 (St. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 12)
God created Adam and Eve with a physical body that was designed to become immortal, not subject to illness, disease, ageing or death; and He sustained that human body with a soul that He willed to grace with immortality. They were not created perfect in the absolute sense, but in the potential sense, a potential whose fulfilment lay in Theosis. Even so, their minds were sharp, and their mental focus had a sense of clarity that was receptive of virtue. Unlike modern Man, pre-fallen Man was not subject to a constantly fluctuating uncertainty of what is right or wrong, and he had none of the negative thoughts, doubts or feelings that beset modern Man – feelings of guilt, fear, inferiority, confusion, anxiety and so on.5 The “image of God” had all its fullness in them because it had not yet become marred or distorted the way it is in us. They were innocent, sinless and unashamed of their nakedness. St. Ephraim believed, as did nearly all other patristic writers, that Adam and Eve were physically “clothed” in God’s uncreated Light.6,7
Men and Women – Equal Blessings, Different Roles
To many, the second chapter of Genesis seems to repeat the story of Man’s creation as told in the first chapter. This is not so according to St. John Chrysostom, an important 4th century early Church Father. Chrysostom explains that in Genesis 1, God has not yet formed Adam and Eve; He is prophesying the equality between men and women by revealing how He plans to create them (in His image and according to His likeness) and by blessing them with equal and joint dominion over the earth. God said,
Let us make man [Greek: άνθρωπον, meaning person, singular] in Our image…Let them [plural] have dominion over the fish…birds…cattle, and…all the earth. So God made man [Greek: άνθρωπον, person, singular]: in the image of God He made him [Greek: τον άνθρωπον, the person, singular); male and female He made them [plural]. Then God blessed them and God said to them “Be fruitful and multiply [Greek: αυξάνεσθε και πληθύνεσθε, plural] fill [plural] the earth and subdue [plural] it, and have [plural] dominion over the fish…the birds…and every living thing…[emphasis mine]” (Genesis 1:26-30).2
From their creation, male plus female together were understood as being one human being, one person (ο άνθρωπος) created equal the one to the other, and of one nature (Genesis 1:27). First, the human being is said to be in the image of God and then the human being is referred to in the plural. The Orthodox Church recognizes that God is not limited by the temporality of events, and He makes no distinction between male and female. St. Paul confirms: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus [emphasis mine]” (Galatians 3:28). The Orthodox Church rejects the idea that Eve is inferior to Adam or that women are inferior to men because Eve was formed afterwards temporally or because she was the first to eat the forbidden fruit and then gave it to her husband. In Orthodoxy, the Fall is referred to as Adam’s Fall (Greek: η πτώση του Αδάμ), for having been blessed with headship (leadership), he is considered primarily responsible by both God and the Church for the fall of Mankind.
According to St. John Chrysostom, Adam and Eve were equally blessed by God prior to their creation, to have dominion over all creation. In the Greek Septuagint, the word for ‘have dominion’ or ‘dominate,’ is the compound plural word, κατακυριεύσατε (katakyrievsate), which means to have total authority, total lordship, total power and total responsibility over all the earth. Chrysostom emphasized that neither the man nor the woman had yet been created when the Lord blessed them in this manner. Though not yet created, the blessings directed to Adam were also directed to Eve, as was also the commandment given to Adam to not eat of the forbidden fruit. The same commandment was given through Adam to Eve.2 This shows that Adam and Eve were created by God with equal importance, status and rank.
God Foresees the Fall of Man
God created the person (τον άνθρωπον) as Adam + Eve, each of them equal in essence and rank but with different roles, because he foresaw the fall. Just like there is differentiation or diversity in roles between the three ‘Persons’ of the Holy Trinity who are all of one essence and therefore equally God, in like manner, there is differentiation or diversity in the roles of a husband and wife, within the equality of their marriage, where the two are ontologically equal, of the same nature and of one flesh.
When God said, “It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18), this does not mean that God made Eve as an afterthought because Adam was lonely. Nor is the person of Eve or her role diminished in any way because she was created after Adam and did not participate in the naming of the animals. Adam was purposely given what is known as headship (cephale, Greek: κεφαλή). He was blessed by God with this form of leadership by being the first to be formed, the first to name others, and the first to receive God’s commandment to abstain from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God chose to do this because He foresaw that Adam’s fallen headship would be redeemed by Jesus Christ, as the New Adam, who became the Head of the Church. Similarly, Eve’s role as Adam’s bride, was to symbolize the Church, which is the Bride and Body of Christ. Whereas Adam failed to save his bride, Eve, from the Serpent, Christ succeeded in saving His Bride, the Church, from sin, Death and the Devil.
After prophesying His creation of Man, God physically forms Adam in Genesis 2. Adam receives headship by naming all the animals and by being the first to receive the commandment to abstain from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and then God forms Eve:
Then the Lord God built the rib He took from Adam into a woman and brought her to him. So Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [emphasis mine]” (Genesis 2:22-24).
Instead of rib, the Greek Septuagint uses the word πλευρά, which means side. The Hebrew word for rib (tsela) can also mean side. In Orthodox Patristic thought, the creation of Eve from Adam’s side indicates their complementary and unique roles within the equality and unity of their human nature. This signifies that woman is not a separate creation but an integral part of man, his “other half,” and that both share the same origin and essence.
In Adam’s prophecy, “…the two shall become one flesh…” we see that God, not man, established the law of marriage. Therefore, marriage is holy. St. Paul calls the husband and wife becoming “one flesh” “a great mystery” (Ephesians 5:32), which is so great that a man leaves his parents and is joined to a woman in marriage. In this joining, his role will be devotion to his wife through love in the form of sacrifice, and her role will be devotion to her husband through love in the form of obedience.3 Both sacrificial and obedient expressions of love require humility and the combination of love with humility is the frequency in which God also works. Hence, Orthodoxy considers marriage to be a holy mystery (sacrament) ordained by God, and not a mere legal or social contract. It is seen as a divinely sanctioned union between a man and a woman, intended for love, procreation and the spiritual growth of the couple. Marriage is meant to mirror God’s love for Humanity and is a path to holiness or deification.
Additionally, the formation of Eve from Adam’s side, is a profound foreshadowing of the birth of the Church, from the piercing of Christ’s side on the Cross. From His side sprang the waters of baptism and the blood of communion. When we partake of this water and this blood, we become members of His Body, the Church. Symbolically, Eve was to Adam what the Church is to Christ. As Adam was the head of his bride and body (Eve), similarly, Christ is the Head of His Bride and Body (the Church). As Eve was “built” from the body of Adam, so is the Church, “built” on the cornerstone, who is Christ (Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 117 (118):22, Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:19-22, 1 Peter 2:4-8). The use of the “bride” imagery to denote the deep intimacy of the intended relationship between Man and his Creator can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God the Father describes Israel as His Bride in Jeremiah 2:32 and Isaiah 62:5. In the New Testament, God the Son refers to the Church, the New Israel, as His Bride in Ephesians 5:22-33.
It is for this reason that God instituted marriage as the very first sacrament. The personal creation of Adam by God, and the intimate creation of Eve from Adam, followed by their mystical marriage, points us towards the greater mystery – the marriage of Christ to His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-23). This mystical union or marriage of Christ with the Church is the Theosis or Deification of Mankind. There can be no greater intimacy between God and Humanity than our Theosis. Christ left his Father in Heaven and became a man to seek a bride. He loved His Bride, the Church, and sacrificed Himself for her.3 His Bride, the Church, responds to this sacrificial love with her free obedience to Christ, which is the fruit of her love and humility towards Him.
Along these lines, in his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul says, “wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore, just as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything [emphasis mine]” (Ephesians 5:22-24). Do these words of the Apostle contradict St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the equality of the sexes in the first chapter of Genesis? Not at all, for St. Paul goes on to say, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave [sacrificed] Himself for her…so husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the Church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones” (Ephesians 5:25-31).
True dignity lies in divine humility. The dignity of the husband’s role as the head of his wife lies in the humility of his sacrificial love for her (Ephesians 5:23). Similarly, the dignity of the wife’s role as her husband’s helper lies in her loving humility expressed as seeking and obeying his godly leadership. In the Orthodox Church, headship is never license for control or domination, but an imitation of Christ’s kenotic love (kenosis: self-emptying and sacrifice). This dynamic in a marital relationship exists when mutual love and humility exist between husband and wife, and between the couple and God, where both husband and wife together strive to love God with all their heart, soul and mind, and one another as themselves (Matthew 22:36-40). Love and humility – this is the frequency in which God works (St. Paisios).
This model of marriage was used to teach the Church that Christ, the Bridegroom is first among equals concerning His Bride, the Church. He is not superior to us in His human nature (the flesh); yet He alone is the Head of the Church. Because He is not superior to us in human nature but equal to us in the nature of the flesh, He was able to redeem our fallen nature.3 He was able to do this because He became fully human, having emptied Himself of His glory to most humbly assume (take on) our human nature (our flesh), while remaining fully God.
Another way of understanding the mystery of equality with diversity within marriage, is to imagine a head that is attached to its body. The head and the body are joined together in one flesh. Each differs from the other in function, yet is equal to the other in rank, because neither the head, nor the body, can live or function without the other. The head has an honorary position, by sitting at the top and “governing” the body, so to speak; but the head cannot accomplish anything without a body that collaboratively yields to it. If the head needs to eat, the body must “help” it by putting food into its mouth. In this model, headship is not a rank, but a role. St. Chrysostom agreed with this model, where head and body have different roles but are equal in essence, sharing the same nature and of one flesh.2
Together, as one human being (ο άνθρωπος), Adam + Eve were truly Human because they were modeled after the Trinitarian God, to whom they were meant to progress, in “likeness,” by practising love and humility to one another “as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). This means they were also doing it to and for God, their ultimate Bridegroom. Does this mean that marriage is necessary for Theosis? No, for in monasticism, one becomes wedded to Christ directly, thereby progressing from “image” to “likeness” without the intermediary step of marriage to a human spouse. In the Orthodox Church, both marriage and monasticism are mysteries leading to Theosis, and the one path is not better or more honourable than the other. Each of them is equal in honour and a calling from God, as is celibacy (virginity) without monasticism.
The purpose of receiving the commandment to abstain from the ‘forbidden fruit’ was not so that God could ‘threaten’ Adam and Eve with death. As we shall see in Part V, the commandment was not a threat, but an invitation to a higher relationship and greater intimacy with God. The commandment was an opportunity for them to use their free will to more closely approach Theosis. For their life and sustenance, they were called to look to God who is the source of Life. If they turned away from God then, of their own choosing, they would no longer be sustained by God. Their potential to become immortal would be lost and by default, they would die.5 The forbidden fruit itself was not intrinsically evil, but a symbol of choosing to depart from God. By ‘fasting’ from the ‘forbidden fruit,’ which represented sin, and by continuing to eat only of all the other fruits of the Garden, Adam and Eve would continue to commune with God. If they broke this ‘fast’ by eating the ‘forbidden fruit,’ they would commune with sin, and begin a relationship with Satan.
This is the basis for fasting in the Orthodox Church. By fasting from certain foods, we re-enact Humanity’s obedience to God in the Garden of Eden. More importantly, the fast from food must be accompanied by fasting from evil. Then, after properly preparing ourselves with repentance and Holy Confession, we commune with God and eternal life by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.
For St. Athanasius, Adam and Eve were created neither immortal, nor perfect. To gain immortality of the body and achieve perfection, they first needed to prove themselves. This is how many of the Church Fathers understood free will. We had to choose our way to perfection and immortality.
God set them [Adam and Eve] in His own paradise and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs without sorrow, pain or care and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but dying outside of it, continue in death and corruption. (St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation)
After giving them a clear and factual warning, God did not intervene at the drama that unfolded at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He allowed their free will to play itself out, for only in freedom is love real. Without complete freedom, Man would be a slave. St. Theophan explains the divine purpose of their gift of freedom:
The goal of human freedom is not in freedom itself, nor is it in man, but in God. By giving man freedom, God has yielded to man a piece of His Divine authority, but with the intention that man himself would voluntarily bring it [his freedom] as a sacrifice to God, a most perfect offering [of love]. (St. Theophan the Recluse)
The Fall of Mankind
The command to abstain from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil first came to Adam, before God created Eve.
Then…the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, “You may eat food from every tree in the Garden; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat; for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death [decompose in the grave]. (Genesis 2:15-17)
However, Eve knew well of this commandment from Adam, because when the Serpent spoke to her, she replied to him in greater detail and with an intensified warning. She said,
We may eat the fruit from the trees of the Garden; but from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden, God said, ‘You shall not eat from it, nor shall you touch it, lest [in case] you die [emphasis mine].’ (Genesis 3:2-3)
When Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent, he tempted both her and Adam with the same lust for glory that had had caused his own downfall, a lust that lacked any humility or love for God. Satan did this in three ways: First, he used pride to tempt and manipulate Adam and Eve into usurping their God-given roles as head and helpmate. Then, he lied about death by telling them they would not die; and then he slandered God by telling them that God was jealous and did not want them to eat the forbidden fruit because He did not want them to become “gods” like Him (Genesis 3:4-5). According to the Church Fathers, this was a strategy to make God appear oppressive and to make the forbidden action more appealing. In the Greek Septuagint translation from the original Hebrew, the Serpent spoke to Eve in the plural saying, “You shall not die [Greek: ου…απoθανείσθε, plural] …you will be [Greek: έσεσθε plural] like gods … So … she … ate. She also gave it to her husband with her, (Greek: μετ’ αυτής) and he ate [emphasis mine]” (Genesis 3:4-6). Here, the Serpent was addressing Eve while Adam was with her.
According to St. John Chrysostom who may have worked from a slightly different Scriptural text that omitted “with her,” Adam and Eve both heard the serpent at the same time.8 We do not know how close Adam was to Eve when the Serpent addressed her, but being near enough for him to hear the Serpent means that Eve was not completely alone. It also means that Adam was listening, but as the one with the headship, he did not intervene. This contrasts with some other, more modern interpretations of Genesis, even in Greece, which rephrase the Septuagint to indicate that Eve was vulnerable because she was completely alone in the Garden when the Serpent spoke to her.
The Septuagint is the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, originating in the 3rd to 2nd centuries B.C. According to the Septuagint and the Orthodox Study Bible, as well as St. John Chrysostom’s source, Eve was not alone. Adam and Eve heard the Serpent at the same time and in their hearts, they simultaneously doubted God and willed to disobey Him because they believed Satan’s distortion over God’s word. This was the sin of lust and pride, which betrayed, not only their relationship with God, but also their relationship to one another.
In her disobedience to God, Eve disregarded her vocation as Adam’s helpmate. Instead of seeking his leadership, in her eagerness to become a “god” she overstepped Adam’s headship without hesitation, reached out and ate first. In his disobedience to God, Adam disregarded his responsible leadership role. Instead of stepping in to uphold God’s commandment and protect Eve from harm, he waited, and when she did not immediately die, he ate too. It appears that Adam was willing to sacrifice Eve to test if it was safe for him to also eat and become a “god.”
Scripture says Eve “took [the] fruit and ate. She also gave it to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of the two were opened and they knew they were naked [emphasis mine]” (Genesis 3:6-7). Eve ate first, but it was after Adam ate that the eyes of both were opened. They both heard the Serpent at the same time; they both sinned in their hearts against God and against one another simultaneously, for they were willing to permit harm to come to one another in their desire to become “gods”; and they both fell from Grace together. According to St. Damaskinos the Studite, what happened in between – who ate first, who ate second, and who bears most of the blame – is immaterial.9 The human being (ο άνθρωπος) consummated the sin after both male + female ate, and “Then the eyes of the two were opened.”
Having cut themselves off from the grace of God, Adam and Eve experienced an immediate spiritual death. Suddenly, “…the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). According to the Early Fathers, when they became spiritually naked of virtue, they lost the garment of God’s uncreated light, which had thus far “clothed” them, and they became physically naked as well.7,8
St. Ephraim believed, as did nearly all other patristic writers, that Adam and Eve were clothed in glory prior to their sin. This meant that the moment of transgression was marked by an observable physical transformation. The discovery of nakedness was no metaphoric allusion to an internal transformation; it marked the loss of something physically real. (Gary Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection)7
For the first time they felt shame, for sin had marred the image of God in them. Their conscience also bothered them with guilt, confusion and fear, for “when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden…[they] hid themselves…” (Genesis 3:7). As they fell into sin, sacrificing their relationship with God for a relationship with Satan and the acquisition of ‘knowledge,’ they ceased being truly Human as God had made them. They felt shame and hid from God, but they still preferred to remain in their new condition – the knowledge of new-found lusts that resulted in self-indulgence – and no repentance of their sin.2 How do we know this?
When God came looking for them, He called out Adam, the ‘responsible’ leader, saying, “Adam, where are you? … Have you eaten from the one tree from which I commanded you not to eat” (Genesis 3:9)? Instead of responding to God’s loving concern with repentance, Adam deflected accountability, first by blaming God and then by blaming Eve. He said, “the woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate [emphasis mine]” (Genesis 3:12). For her part, Eve did not blame God; she blamed the Serpent for deceiving her, but this was still an excuse, for she had already shown that she clearly understood God’s commandment. Their joint lack of repentance confirmed their desire to remain in their new condition of “knowledge” (gnosis) without God, making their disobedience, and their rejection of God complete.
After the Fall
God, however, did not completely depart from them, for His grace continued to sustain the life in them. When they both ate, they departed in their soul from God, becoming unreceptive to His grace. Because of his pride, Mankind stopped listening to the divine voice (his conscience), leading him farther along the path of apostasy and a further deepening of sin. The sinful inclination took the reigning position in Man and became his spiritual disease. Both his mind and his feelings darkened within him. Therefore, his moral freedom often does not align towards good, but towards evil. By seeking “emancipation” from God, Mankind became “a slave to sin” (John 8:34). In departing from God, he followed Satan. The Fall and our expulsion from Eden set in motion universal decay, and a marring of the image of God in us.5
As a result, all of mankind originating in Adam has been plunged into a chaotic and roaring ocean of material attachments…submerged in temptations…and overwhelmed by the great weight of evil pressing down on its power of reason… (St. Maximus, Questions of Thalasius, 64-65)
What had been required of Adam and Eve to achieve Theosis, was a free joining of their will to God’s will as an offering of their love; but “love is not…proud” (1 Cor. 13:1). The Devil had tempted them with divinity; and by adopting the same demonic pride that had caused the fall of Satan, they, too, fell from grace. Their expulsion from the Garden was not meant as a punishment from God, but as an act of mercy, so that they would not also eat of the Tree of Life that was in the Garden and immortalize themselves along with the sinful condition within them.
As we shall see in Par V, and contrary to the general Western understanding, the Orthodox Church does not teach that God “cursed” Adam and Eve. First through their disobedience, then by hiding from God, and finally by failing to repent, Adam and Eve alienated themselves from God.10 The suffering that Adam and Eve would experience after the Fall, was not a curse from God, but the consequence of their choice. Despite this, God did not completely depart from them or from us, since our bodies and our lives are still upheld by His grace. Man’s disobedience, however, diminished the fullness of His grace in us, introducing sickness and ageing, resulting in death in the grave and a return to the dust from which Adam was made.
Eve’s alienation from God meant that “in pain [she would] bring forth children. [Her] recourse [would] be to [her] husband, and he [would] rule over [her]” (Genesis 3:1). After selfishly dishonouring Adam’s headship, she would now practise humility by turning to her husband for his help, and he would dominate her. In this manner, God made woman a “second authority” to her husband.2
Adam’s alienation from God meant that “cursed [would be] the ground in [his] labours. In toil [he would] eat from it all the days of [his] life. Both thorns and thistles it would bring forth for [him], and … in the sweat of [his] face [he would] eat bread…” (Genesis 3:17-19). After selfishly permitting Eve to sin at the Tree of Knowledge because he wanted to ensure that it was safe for him to do the same, Adam, the cultivator, would now practise humility in hard, physical labour. The ground from which he came would now resist his efforts as a constant reminder of his resistance to God’s love.
No longer good stewards, Adam and Eve also alienated themselves from the perishable world, but in His great mercy, God mitigated the hostility of the world so that Mankind would be able to survive and tolerate their earthly life. They would now progress to deification by learning love and humility through suffering; and the longing for the Paradise they had lost taught them to hate the sin that had caused it.
According to St. John Chrysostom both Adam and Eve were created equal in nature and were given equal authority to rule over the created world. After the Fall, God did not change the equality of their nature but limited their authority over the world.2 Therefore, many plants and animals became wild and hostile to Mankind, but by God’s sustaining grace, some remained tame enough to yield to Man’s use of them for his survival.2 Their fear and struggle for survival outside the Garden of Eden introduced enmity with the natural world. The fear of death in Mankind also instilled anxiety, materialism, greed, hatred and despair. This eventually resulted in economic exploitation, racial oppression, social inequalities, wars, genocides, and so on. These collective signs of death are all consequences of the fear of death.10
By yielding to sin and Satan, Man eventually allowed Satan to become the “ruler of the world” (John 14:30), resulting in the suffering of all creatures. “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now” (Romans 8:22), for “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). This is because our master becomes the one who we follow. Some may say that they follow no-one except themselves, but this is a trap, for it is a form of self-worship (pride), which is exactly how Satan lost Paradise.2
Sin also distorted the role of headship and the responsible ruler. As a result, instead of being good stewards, sinful men (and women) became despots and some even tyrants.2 In addition, a man’s godly headship, which was meant to be only in relation to his wife, became distorted and was generalized across womankind. This resulted in many abuses of women, and even children, even by modern “Christians” who ignored or forgot that the “…first of all the commandments is … you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength…’ And the second, like it, is … ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:29-31). Treating all women, children and men as our neighbour and loving them as ourselves would have prevented many atrocities like the slave trade and the need for societal constructs like the various human rights organizations … Many social movements continuously arise to mitigate the wages of sin. Why do they continuously arise? Because they don’t do nearly as good a job as obeying the commandment to love.
The greatest tragedy for Man, was that instead of reaching union with God – he died. His body returned to the dust, and his soul succumbed to Satan’s rule in the underworld, Gehenna, or Hades. Even this, however, did not appease Satan’s rage because he knows it is only a temporary victory. After the first coming of Christ and the abolition of Hades and death in the grave, Satan knows that each passing day brings him ever closer to Christ’s second coming and the fate that awaits him “in the lowest depths of the Pit” (Isaiah 14:15). Therefore, with increasing ferocity, he assails Mankind much the same the way as he did in the Garden. From primordial time, Satan’s method of assault, also known as temptation, has not changed much.
The Anatomy of Temptation
How does temptation, work? ** Eve first heard the Serpent, and then when she looked, she “saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree beautiful to contemplate [emphasis mine]” (Gen 3:6). For the first time, Humanity imagined sin by taking their primary love and focus – their spiritual eyes – off God and turning them towards the world (creation). They knew nothing of sin before, but “imagining” about the fruit and what it can do without God was the cascading moment into Man’s first sin according to St. Maximus the Confessor. At this juncture, Eve still possessed the will to refuse the fruit, and Adam still possessed the will to prevent her from taking it, but each decided not to. Both adopted the sin of pride and disobeyed, using their freedom for evil by turning away from God in their newfound lust for something else – becoming gods on their own terms.
God already knew good from evil theoretically. Instead of learning of it through the gradual process of Theosis, Adam and Eve chose to learn it experientially, prematurely, and sinfully through prideful disobedience. The way Satan accomplished this deception was not the same as how we are often deceived. Today, we are “inwardly” assaulted by Satan due to our lusts that stem from our fallen nature. Satan aims his assaults at us by targeting our mind or nous with sinful thoughts and ideas. After the Fall, every sin begins with a demonic intrusion of the nous, which the individual either accepts or rejects. Those without “original sin,” like Jesus and pre-Fallen Adam and Eve, could only be assaulted “externally.” If accepted, the external assault then becomes internalized and leads to the actual Fall itself.6 Saint John of Damascus teaches:
The wicked one [Satan], then, made his assault [on Jesus] from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But [unlike Adam] the Lord [Jesus] repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapour, in order that the passions which assailed Him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam [Jesus] should save the old [emphasis mine]. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Par 20)
Some may reject the first chapters of Genesis because on the surface, it may seem excessively punitive that biting into a mere fruit is a serious enough crime for banishment from Paradise. To these, such a serious consequence would be more justifiable had Adam and Eve committed a worse crime, like murder for instance. Then, the ‘punishment’ would have been more in keeping with the ‘crime.’ However, it wasn’t the action that was important, but the expression of their hearts’ desire. The fruit was simply the means of expressing that they no longer desired God but their own selves. By choosing selfish pride instead of love and humility, they had indeed become “gods” unto themselves, as Satan had ironically promised, but not like the loving and humble God they had known, and not with the outcome they expected.
Another way to understand Man’s rebellion against God is to compare it to adultery between a man and a woman. One of them “sees” another person and begins to “contemplate” that the new person is “pleasant to the eyes” and “good for food” (sexual gratification). At this moment of contemplation, they have taken their primary love and focus (their spiritual eyes or the eyes of their heart) off their spouse and turned them towards another. This is the cascading moment into the sin of adultery. At this juncture, one can summon the will to reject the contemplation, but if one decides not to, and embraces the imaginings that follow, one has already committed adultery in one’s heart. The physical act that follows consummates the sin. For this reason, Christ said, “You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery. ‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-30). In the case of Adam and Eve, because they lusted after becoming “gods,” they each committed adultery against God, and against one another.
It is also for this reason that Christ called the unbelieving Jews “adulterous,” because even after seeing so many miracles, they kept asking Jesus for a sign that He was truly the Messiah. He replied, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah [emphasis mine]” (Matthew 12:39). By this, Christ did not mean that they had all been unfaithful to their spouses, but unfaithful to God, because they had betrayed His love for them with their disbelief. Instead, they idolized the Law. Rather than accepting liberation from sin by Christ, they preferred to remain fettered to sin by the Law, which enabled and fueled the proud spirit of self-righteousness within them.
Repentance eventually came to Adam and Eve after their expulsion from Eden. Amid the toil and hardships of their new life and missing the blissful close fellowship they had once enjoyed with God, one can only imagine the extent of their added sorrow, grief, guilt and bitter regret when Cain killed Abel in a fury of envy. The murder of the one brother by the other revealed to their parents the full impact of their sin against God in Eden. This is why it has become part of the fallen human condition that suffering now be necessary for salvation. Suffering has become the path to repentance and our return to God.
To be continued with Part IV – The Remedy for Sin…
For those wishing to draw closer to the crown of God’s creation, we recommend praying the Akathist to our Forefathers Adam and Eve
Footnotes
*The terms Man, Humanity, Mankind are used interchangeably and in the plural sense to mean both the masculine and the feminine together. The terms he, him, his also denote the singular feminine unless otherwise stated in the text. These terms will be used in this manner throughout all Parts of this Series.
**According to St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Sin Develops in Eight Steps:
- The devil attacks the mind
- The mind considers the evil thought
Sin begins when:
- The mind consents to the evil thought
- The individual acts out the evil thought
- The evil becomes a habit
- The habit becomes a lifestyle
- The individual begins to feel despair
- The individual begins to feel the presence of Hell
References
- Archimandrite Athanasios Mililinaios, Homilies on the Book of the Revelation, Volume III (The Seven Trumpets & The Antichrist), Translated by Constantine Zalalas, copyright 2015, Zoe Press, Pg 188
- Maria-Fotini Polidoulis Kapsalis, Image as Authority in the Writings of John Chrysostom, Doctoral Thesis, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto School of Theology, Toronto 2001
- The Orthodox Study Bible, Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World, Old & New Testaments, texts & exegesis Pg. 6, 1608
- Robert Payne, THE HOLY FIRE, The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1980 pg 261
- Craig Truglia, The Orthodox Doctrine of Original Sin: A Comprehensive Treatment
- John Sanidopoulos, The Garment of Adam and the Garment of Joseph
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/04/the-garment-of-adam-and-garment-of.html
- Gary Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection, p 104
- Ιωάννου Χρυσοστόμου, ΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΤΑ ΕΡΓΑ – 2, ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ Εις την Γένεσιν (Oμιλίαι Α’-ΚΓ’), Έλληνες Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας, Πατερικαί Εκδόσεις «Γρηγόριος ο Παλαμάς» Θεσσαλονίκη 1981, σελ. 434
- Θησαυρός ΔΑΜΑΣΚΗΝΟΥ, Του Υποδιακόνου και Στουδίτου του Θεσσαλονικέως, (Λόγος ΚΔ’), σελ. 369-370
- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Orthodox Perspectives on Creation
Last comment, but I’m on a roll here….Genesis 3:24 ” After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[a] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” It looks to me like GOD kicked ADAM out of the garden….Eve went willingly.
One last comment/question. This is not a new one, spoiler alert. What does it mean in Genesis 3 that she shall desire her husband? Everyone says it means she will want to rule over him but I don’t think that is correct. I’m not saying women aren’t bossy and can be controlling, but let’s be honest, men can be that way too. Maybe I’m just a product of the feminist movement, unwittingly, but there was a song from the 70’s by Mac Davis with the refrain of “baby, baby don’t get hooked on me. I’ll just use you and I’ll set you free…” My memory of men back in the day was none of them wanted to get married, but they did want to have casual sex. Most women wanted to get married, or were “boy crazy” or didn’t feel complete if they weren’t married, etc. Could this be the meaning behind these words? It has always seemed to me that women needed men emotionally more than men need women. Curious as to what you all think on this.
Why does EVERYONE leave this part of Ephesians out: Ephesians 5:21 KJV “21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”?! We are first commanded to submit one to another. I’m not negating the rest of Ephesians 5, but that precursor to 5:22 is always left out! Also, if we are truly thinking of the other person and what is best for them the rest would be so much easier! On an aside note, I have always wondered why all the detail on why woman was created…I mean, GOD created the animals male and female, it seems like a no-brainer you’d make male and female humans. Just curious if there isn’t some kind of insight I’m missing as to why that was put in there.
The Holy Virgin Mother of God a wall flower? Was all her time consumed in prayer? Was her whole life a trail of tears? I don’t think so. From the earliest fathers, they said, she did all things well. She is the quintessential archetype “Lady” in every way. More musings on the relationship between Mary and her Son: Sorry, I’m feeling a bit inspired right now. So, indulge me a bit, and read on. I think it fits in this thread of conversation.
At the marriage feast in Cana, the text is clear. “The mother of Jesus was there”–like, already there–, and Jesus and His disciples were “invited”. What’s the difference? The difference was huge. First off, who goes into somebody else’s home and orders the servants around [except your mother-in-law when she comes to visit–oops, did I say that?]? Nope, it doesn’t happen, not now, not then. [well, sometimes now, but, not then] Consider: If Jesus was to turn the water into wine, how would an “invited” guest have access to, and authority to make changes in the prescribed menu? Doesn’t happen…that would be a breach of etiquette, a violation of authority…unless the organizer of the food stuffs–the woman in charge of the victuals–gave it to Him. How did the Mother of God have control over the household servants? There are only two possibilities. 1. She organized the drink and/or food preparations, because that chore had been delegated to her, or, 2. Her relationship with the groom’s household was so close as to infer some sort of family relationship to such a degree, she could take over something of the operations–which she did, without the groom even knowing about it. [He’s getting married, the operations were delegated]. I think, 1 is the more likely. But, either case, the servants understood her to have authority over their job descriptions and they knew nothing of the rank we give her in hind sight. Even if they did, that would still not give her the authority over the servants to delegate it to Jesus all by itself. How can it be otherwise? Or, was Mary some sort of party crasher? I think not! Neither was Jesus. Jesus did not invite Himself, somebody wanted Him there, and maybe even the guest list was under Mary’s purview. Is this scenario possible? I think so, I don’t see any other way for the story to work.
So, who was the “governor of the feast”? He was master of ceremonies. Yeah, he’s the imported DJ to keep the party rolling. He had nothing to do with preparations; the groom paid for it, and yet, somebody had to see to the preparations.
Now here it gets very human; Mary’s relationship with Jesus and how they interacted. Notice: Mary never demanded anything of Jesus, she never issued a directive, she did not even ask for Jesus to “please do something!”, she only gave to him what was just a weather report, so to speak. There is no more wine. She would know, if it was in her jurisdiction. No doubt, when the wine ran out, guests were courteous enough to not make a big deal, or even talk about it, they were guests, no paying patrons. Ah, but, this woman knew all about it and probably saw it coming. Again, no imploring, no demanding, not even suggesting, just the information. But, oh my, what power that carried as to Jesus it brought about an obligation because He loved her. See, moms can have great influence over their sons, even when they are fully grown, moved away, etc, but, God forbid, they abuse it out of self interest, or to just be controlling. Mary knew her place well in her Son’s life, and, she respected His masculine boundaries in only giving the information with being demanding. But, Jesus knew what she wanted. Why did she want it? Because it would embarrass the groom and the governor–the DJ in charge, don’t ya’ think so?
When Jesus says, “Woman! what have I to do with thee”?! are you kidding me? Jesus, this is your mom. What do you mean, “Woman, what have I to do with thee”? We’ve just spent 2,000 years answering that question. Guess what? That’s male pushback, or push off. Jesus was simply reaffirming His masculine boundaries with a strong woman–to let her know she cannot control him….Just as He did in the temple at age 12. Its curious to me, Jesus calls her “Woman”, not mom, or mother, or Mary, but, “Woman!”.[here we could extrapolate, but won’t] Of course, He will give her whatever she wanted and Mary was not of the sort of woman who would abuse that delicate yet powerful influence with her Son. This tension is so precious. In many ways our beloved Mary was fully a woman, behaving as women do with concerns about food and drink and for the honor of those who invited many to participate in their rejoicing. As women are, she was situation aware,that running out of wine would slow the celebration and embarrass the host. At the same time, Jesus was dealing with a strong but typical woman, in that He had to constantly keep His masculine boundaries clear. Was this confining for her? Not so much; she had confidence He would let her know where she was in danger of overreach, and she never “walked on egg shells” when around Him. Yet, as history shows, her love for Him was beyond comprehension even while the relationship had some tension in it. Its so human. ..
And… all this stuff about, “my time is not yet”; all pushback–I think–and, we theologically parse it to something heavy, for hidden meaning that may not be there. Jesus was adept at hyperbole anyway, [eg strain at a gnat, swallow a camel], He was just keeping things clear with mom. He was governor of Himself, and, her. Its what all males did back then, and up until industrialization when women were afforded “equality” (aka abandonment, yeah, “you go girl!”). Often, we forget how human Jesus and Mary were, over spiritualizing everything. Jesus relationship with His mother was robust, even some confrontation, yet, full of love, and fully human–all of it without sin! Go figure. Too often–I think–we are trying too hard to be like angels; but, if God wanted more angels, He would have made more angels. And this wedding feast, people got slammed! And, Jesus gave them more, even better stuff.
See, all this is why God made Man to begin with. Angels cannot convey the Image God wants portrayed like Man does. Angels have no sense of humor–all business they are; but, Man has the luxury of laughing, crying, feeling compassion, being…well…just human, and sometimes a bit tipsy.
BTW: the blessed Virgin Mary had two sons. First, was Jesus, but, then there was St John–“woman behold thy son” said Jesus on the cross. By way of covenant declaration, Jesus made John her son as well and he looked after her from then on as his own mother. This St John is my patron saint–I have loved him from my youth–and, I guess, I feel some obligation to guard Mom’s dignity as a woman, as a mother, and just to let her be a woman bringing honor to all women who walk in her footsteps as mother or virgin.
Hello John. Thank you for your comments and your “musings”.
These essays came about because of my own “musings” and my discovery of the things they eventually led me to. However, we need to be careful not to get too carried away by our imaginings. We need to keep ourselves grounded in Holy Tradition to prevent error, and especially the heresy of gnosticism.
My spiritual father mentioned that according to the Holy Fathers of our Church, there are many layers of interpretation of Genesis, which do not contradict one another, but help us understand Genesis on different levels. I chose to focus more on St. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the equality of AUTHORITY between the sexes because this level of interpretation resonated well with me, and I believe also with our times, and I understood it well enough to be able to share and discuss it with others. I am not an academic theologian, so I have to be extra careful to be able to back up everything I say. So when Chrysostom speaks of equality, yes, men and and women are not equal i.e. they are not the same. They are complementary but this does not imply superiority and inferiority which I think is a “fallen” concept. Complementary just means “different” like two different pieces of a puzzle. Imagine a puzzle with just two pieces in it. The pieces are different but both are needed to complete the image of the puzzle. In that sense the two pieces are equal in authority as the image equally needs both pieces for its completion, but the pieces can be totally different the one from the other in their size, shape, colour, and how they behave within the matrix of the puzzle. This is to your point of how women and men have different powers and how they use them to exert equal authority. Imagine one puzzle piece taking up 90% of the puzzle and the other taking up 10%. One is much bigger than the other but if the smaller one was the “eye” of the image… you get the point. We can have a whole fascinating discussion about this – a testament to my nerdiness, and perhaps yours – but the point is that you don’t have to be someone’s clone to be “equal” to them. Equal in what? Equal in importance. I think “authority” here is synonymous with “importance.” And why would I want to be somebody’s clone anyway? If I did not have my unique individuality I would not be special, would I?
Our physical bodies came from the dust of the earth and our soul came from God. We have a dual nature. Our soul gives life to our physical body and carries the image of God in us – the nous, the conscience, our free will and our creativity. Our brain participates but it is material. The physical brain is the calculator and the wiring of our body that carries out the will of our soul, but by itself, it does not give us life. The soul has the power to control the brain and the body by focusing, guiding, deciding what it’s going to learn etc. We are a unique creation – physical and spiritual. there is a “piece” of God in us via our soul, which if we deny, we will lead miserable lives as we deny our very nature. By denying our spiritual nature and our need for God (because our soul is a “part” of God), we become materialistic focusing only on creation, the world, and our soul suffers (starves), so we suffer. Unless we realize this and take care of it, the more we suffer, the more we will look to creation to fill the void, and the bigger the void will get because we are starving our soul.
You asked if the Holy Mother of God was a “wallflower.” I don’t think so, but I think she wanted to be, by purposely keeping herself in the background because of i) her profound humility ii) her profound love for God, iii) her belief in and support of God’s salvific plan for mankind which meant that the less attention she attracted for herself, the more attention her Son’s mission would get. She knew she was not “it” but a vehicle for IT (Him). Even in the icons that Luke traditionally painted of her, she is holding her Son on one arm and indicating Him (pointing towards Him) with the other, by way of showing that HE is the focus and not her. She agreed to be painted on this one condition, which is why it’s so rare to find any icons of her alone.
There is an excellent book compiled and written by an Orthodox Monastery in the US (The Life of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos) which contains any piece of information anyone can ever wish to know about her, compiled from iconography, hymnography and the Protoevangelion of St. James, the “brother” of the Lord (the youngest son of St. Joseph the betrothed from his first marriage, who was also the first bishop of Jerusalem and who also presided over the first Apostolic Synod, spoken of in Acts). I have already written about how this and other apocryphal sources were not included in the New Testament because they did not satisfy the criteria of the New Testament Canon. However, the Holy Fathers did approve of and use the first five chapters of the Protoevangelion, which according to them, did not show evidence of corruption. The book itself (The Life of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos) attests to this, and discourages the reader from reading anything past the first five chapters. I suspect James’ work fell into the wrong hands after he wrote it, and others added to his writings, things that did not satisfy the New Testament Canon criteria.
Your next question might be, so why were the first five chapters not included in the New Testament? The answer is probably because the New Testament focuses directly on Christ and our Salvation through His fulfillment of the Old Testament, and not about the bio of the Theotokos. I think rightly so. Too much Mariology could detract from or dilute the Gospel message – at least the Holy Fathers thought so, and for good reason, since as early as the 4th century a heresy (Collyridianism) arose that treated Mary as a goddess and a member of the Holy Trinity. This was mentioned by St. Epiphanios of Salamis in 375 AD. The New Testament Canon was synodically developed in 397 AD at the third Council of Carthage, so the timing makes sense.
With respect to the Wedding at Cana, the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) provides an excellent treatment of this (John 2: 2-12), which can be found on page 1424 (the Old + New Testament edition). Why was His first miracle at a wedding? For the same reason God established marriage as the first Sacrament in Genesis. It points us to the marriage (union) of God with His Bride, the Church. Why wine? In the Old Testament, the fruit of the vine (grapes, wine) was symbolic of Life and of the Messiah (New Testament: His Blood as wine i.e. Life). At this wedding, Jesus effectively “says”: I, Life, am here and My ministry has begun. When Mary said to Him, “they have no wine” she could be saying, “they have no Life.” i.e. marriage is not complete without the presence of Christ AND our marriage (union) to God can only be accomplished through Christ (his Blood in the Eucharist) – different but not contradictory levels of meaning. When Jesus calls his mother “Woman”, that seems derogatory to us but not to them. “Woman is a sacred title in scripture, conveying deep respect and distinction” (see OSB). “What does your concern have to do with me?” is more literally, “What is that to me and to you?” or “what does their lack of wine have to do with our role in their salvation?” This is not Jesus’ refusal to Mary’s intercession but a declaration that the time has not yet come for Christ to be revealed. That Christ fulfills Mary’s request teaches: i) Christ is Lord over hours and seasons and is not subject to them, ii) the wedding party needed to be aware of their lack of wine first, so that they might learn that it is Christ who fulfills all needs, iii) we need to have perseverence in our petitions before God, iv) the intercessions of the righteous have great power.” (OSB).
Whether Mary was involved with the wedding preparations or not, is immaterial to the greater meanings of this wedding event. Notice how Mary has free will in the sense that even if it was not Christ’s original plan to change water into wine, He still accommodates her request without changing His salvific role. He was still present at the wedding (he could have refused the invitation) to denote the connection with marriage between God and Church (Bride) without changing the water to wine. Being God, however, He had to have foreknown how she was going to use her free will (by sympathizing with their running out of wine) and how He was going to weave that into his salvific role. He did not promise her He would do anything about it, and yet, she believed He would and told the servants to do whatever He instructed them to do. This speaks volumes about her humility, her faith and their relationship (mother and Son). We could talk about this for hours but the point is that she did what she did and He did what He did, and of all the things He did that were not recorded, this was recorded.
This reminds me of the miracle of the woman with the issue of blood – why was that miracle recorded when a lot of things Jesus said and did were not recorded, because if they were, all the books in the world could not contain all the records (John 21:25)? Think how a bleeding woman was unclean at the time, how the chronicly hemorrhaging woman was ashamed to publicly admit her ailment because of her “uncleaness,” how she secretly touched the hem of His garment which was supposed to have made Him unclean, but she did it anyway because of her faith and her desperation. Bleeding was not easily talked about because it was a shame to be unclean. And women were second class citizens to boot; and yet, not only was this miracle recorded, but there is no mention of her being ritually impure in the gospels. Only that He called her “daughter.” He certainly did not scold her for having touched Him while she was bleeding. Did He have to wash Himself afterwards? Did any of the unbelieving Jews object to her touching Him and make Him wash Himself? Did the disciples ask Him anything about it? Nothing like this is recorded (but Him working miracles on the Sabbath is recorded). In fact, after curing her, He goes straight to Jairus’ house and raises his daughter from the dead!
According to the ritual impurity laws of the time, He would have made the resurrected girl “unclean” (well, so what? She was dead and now she is alive) and anybody or anything else He touched “unclean,” but not even Jairus objected, or even cared, and he was a prominent and well read Jew, who was a leader of the synagogue in Capernaum. Of course, God is not subject to human ritual impurity laws, but I find it fascinating that there is no record or mention of how the bleeding woman who touched Him would have or could have made Him unclean – something which was very important to the Jews, and which to me, by the very omission of any mention, totally decimates the Jewish ritual impurity laws. OR, nobody dared say anything about Him being unclean after he raises a girl from the dead! At that point, ritual impurity concerns would be incredibly petty, don’t you think? But the unbelieving Jews were petty enough to object to healings on the Sabbath. So, this brings me back to my original hypothesis that the omission of mention was purposeful to more powerfully decimate the Jewish impurity laws. How liberating, especially for women!
I love how the bible records all the controversial things Jesus did and how the Holy Spirit enlightened the authors to pick, choose and record them. Anyway, I digress. Bottom line: We have in writing and in Holy Tradition, all we need to know and more. Any imaginings over and above risk leading us astray, so while it is good to think and ponder about God, one must be careful to use Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as our tempered guides, and resist the temptation to go down rabbit holes; or if we do, recognize it, resurface, and resume the path God intended us to take.
Not sure if I addressed all your queries, John, not even sure if you wanted them addressed, and I don’t pretend to know all the answers anyway, but I’m very thankful that you enjoyed the essay and took the time to comment so extensively. I was getting worried that the subject was of no interest to anyone because of the paucity of comments. Glory to God!
Some great exegesis here Irene. I’ve had many musings along these lines for years. Here are a few things to add to these good thoughts:
Scripture says, God breathed into Adam and he “became” [or was made] a living soul. We know where the breath of Life came from, where did the soul come from? It just was. Its one of those things, I trip over mentally, because it is unexplainable, sort of like, “The Word became [was made] flesh”.
Adam name his wife twice, this was all set in the context of Adam naming the animals: before the fall, he called her “Woman” [ishshah], as she was taken out of man [Iysh}; that was her name. Notice the name, ishshah is an extrapolation of Iysh as “she” is from “he”, “female” is from “male”, etc.. After the fall, he named her Eve; no longer a shared identity. God called them both Adam (Gen 5:2), We can either reflect the creation order, or we can reflect the fall.. Did Adam have a previous wife? The legend of “Lilith”, had existed in many ancient cultures, now among the fallen creatures. If its true, Lilith was created separately, not out of Adam, Her rebellion caused God to take another approach and set the stage for “Woman”.
Satan offered a cheap imitation of what they already had. He said, “ye shall be AS gods.” whereas Jesus–echoing David–said, “Ye Are Gods”.(John 10:34). God offered Adam a process in theosis, Satan offered a shortcut to a counterfeit. Do we not all like shortcuts? Which is really an end-around God.
Three words tell the whole story: Incorrupt, corruption, and incorruptible. Adam was created incorrupt, but was corruptible by choice.Think a new nail, not yet rusted. But, he corrupted. Christ was corruptible in His human nature, incorruptible in His Divine Nature. Think stainless steel nail. “Without corruption you gave birth to God the Word….”. In the dogma of two wills, Christ’s human will followed the Divine will by choice, so that “in all points He was tempted as we” yet, without sin or corruption. Truly a mystery.
God’s articulation of what would befall Adam and Eve, it is notable, Adam’s hardships would be regarding provision. Eve’s hardship would be regarding childbirth. According to the principle of “Recapitulation” (St. Ireneous), God’s charge–aka the dominion mandate– never changed with the fall–it was only made more difficult. God never backs up, or starts over, but, continually moves forward. .
Do women have an inside track regarding salvation? 1 Tim. 2:15. I think so, and many women pass it up.
Every canonical temple is a microcosm of the cosmos demonstrating both the masculine and feminine principles; the priest and the portal (ark, altar). By nature, every woman is a portal, either a stairway to heaven (Jacob’s ladder) or hell. Its why nearly all spirit mediums are women. Did Adam properly porter the portal? It is notable, Satan approached the woman, to get to the Adam, and God excoriated him for “listening to his wife”. Adam was the covenant head of mankind, and why his sin is the one that caused death.
Women’s evil is far more deceptive than that of men–their abuse is of emotional, and mental gaming her prey. Men confront, attack directly, women weave webs of deception for purposes of control. A wicked woman, castrates her man (in his will), then pokes his eyes out so he cannot see what she is doing–think Samson. The fathers put much more culpability on Bathsheba than David; she purposefully drew David into her net. So much so, Matthew never mentioned her name, but, rather “wife of Uriah”. No name, is like no face, no identity, she who shall not be named.
What is a modern Delilah? Its a woman who cannot have any sound relationship with a man without controlling him.[Ok, now I’ve gone to meddlin’]
Bottom line: no human being can love, as all human love has some element of self-interest, which if not checked can create either a codependency or schism; neither is healthy. Only when each in a marriage puts God first and foremost is self-interest put aside.
All true covenants define both the horizontal and vertical relationships, eg “help-meet”. When we talk “equality” it gets really dicey as that word alone is always taken as all encompassing. Obedience and submission are two very different things. Only to God do we have unqualified obedience–and He is so patient with our disobedience–and sometimes its best to obey God rather than human authority when necessary. Just like every priest demonstrates submission to hierarchy, but that does not mean unqualified obedience–but, of course, this does not excuse disrespect.
The term “help-meet” says it all. Helper defines her role, yet, “meet” says equality of persons. Equal? Really? If creation was recorded in ascending order, the woman may be a higher form of Man, than men. When women compete with men, they are actually stepping down from her high place. Modernity has beguiled woman once more. Manhood suggests strength, but, womanhood suggests beauty–optimally on the inside more than outside. Which is higher in Divinity? Does not the beauty of the Lord surpass His strength? Its why we adorn temples. It’s definitely more of a mystery.
One of the most fascinating studies for me is of how Jesus related to His mother and is a template for how men related to the women in their lives. Men and women are different–to understate the obvious. Even the best of women is like a vortex emotionally pulling all things inward. Jesus pushed off His mother constantly delineating his “masculine turf”, first, at age 12 in the temple, then at the marriage feast of Cana. Each man must become independent, fully orbed in his own masculinity before taking a wife. This creates a tension where he is ever pressing forward, and she is anchoring the home. And, I could babble on. .
[…] Understanding the Fall of man, https://orthodoxreflections.com/falling-for-the-fruit-of-spiritual-adultery/ […]
An excellent article. It gave me insight into what makes a marriage truly successful….humility & love; sacrifice & obedience.
Thank you Irene
[…] ‘Sin also distorted the role of headship and the responsible ruler. As a result, instead of being good stewards, sinful men (and women) became despots and some even tyrants.2 In addition, a man’s godly headship, which was meant to be only in relation to his wife, became distorted and was generalized across womankind. This resulted in many abuses of women, and even children, even by modern “Christians” who ignored or forgot that the “…first of all the commandments is … you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength…’ And the second, like it, is … ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:29-31). Treating all women, children and men as our neighbour and loving them as ourselves would have prevented many atrocities like the slave trade and the need for societal constructs like the various human rights organizations … Many social movements continuously arise to mitigate the wages of sin. Why do they continuously arise? Because they don’t do nearly as good a job as obeying the commandment to love’ (Dr Irene Polidoulis, ‘Falling for the Fruit of Spiritual Adultery,’ orthodoxreflections.com). […]