Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 2. Theological Foundations of Christian Moral Teaching.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 2. Theological Foundations of Christian Moral Teaching.

58 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 2. Theological Foundations of Christian Moral Teaching.

  • Man as the Image of God
  • The Commandments of Eden
  • The Fall and Its Moral Consequences

Before discussing the actual content of Christian moral teaching, it is important to highlight the human characteristics that make moral activity itself possible. Some of these were discussed in detail during Christological debates, while others have never been a subject of controversy. For educational purposes, all these characteristics can be broadly grouped into several categories:

Spirituality, rationality, and free will

From an ethical standpoint, a person is considered morally accountable provided they possess rationality —the ability to adequately comprehend what is happening and to think critically—as well as freedom —the ability to independently choose a course of action without external constraints.

Together, rationality and freedom form the basis of responsibility. At the same time, contemporary atheistically-minded scientists assert that a person’s consciousness and behavior are determined by biochemical processes and are therefore not free at all. In essence, such fundamental concepts as mind, consciousness, personality, subject, and the like are reduced within such approaches to a set of chemical, biological, and other reactions, which deprives humans of their moral status.

In turn, Christians, based on biblical revelation, believe that the rationality and capacity for freedom found in human beings are characteristics of a living (Dan. 6:20, Matt. 16:16), all-wise (Job 9:4), Rom. 14:24, 26) and free (Job 42:2; Dan. 4:31–32) God, who creates man in His own image. He Himself, dwelling in the ineffable communion of the three Divine Persons, calls His rational creation into this communion.

In patristic literature, the mind is traditionally associated with the spirit as the highest power of the soul, which is the source of all rational activity. However, by virtue of such a lofty and, as it is customary to say, “sovereign” significance, it is precisely the mind that is considered the source of the Fall. Reflecting on this, St. Gregory the Theologian says: “He needed flesh for the sake of the fallen flesh, and a soul for the sake of the soul, and a mind for the sake of the mind, which in Adam not only fell but, as doctors say of diseases, was the first to be afflicted. For that which received the commandment did not keep the commandments, and that which did not keep them ventured into transgression, and that which transgressed was most in need of salvation, and that which was in need of salvation was accepted. Consequently, the mind was accepted”[1] .

Speaking of human freedom, St. John of Damascus writes: “Man was created in the image of the blessed and pre-existent Godhead, and God’s nature by its very nature possesses the capacity for free choice and will—therefore, man, as His image, by nature possesses the capacity for free choice and will”[2].

Already in Paradise, God calls upon man to observe certain commandments, one of which he fulfills there (Gen. 2:20), while he violates another (Gen. 3:6). In fact, without the freedom to act in one way or another, there would be neither sin nor virtue. However, debates about the two wills in Christ led to the emergence of a deeper understanding of freedom, one that is not limited to freedom of choice.

In a philosophical context, the concept of “freedom” implies a certain distinction between “freedom from,” i.e., freedom from constraints, and “freedom for,” i.e., the freedom of one’s own creative action. In Greek, freedom was denoted by the word ἐλευθερία, from *hlleudh, meaning “belonging to the tribe”[3]. In the Romance languages, there is the word, cognate with the Greek—liberty, from the Latin liber, which goes back to the same root *hlleudh—and also means “belonging to [one’s] people”[4]. The English word “freedom” carries a similar meaning; it derives from *freo – “friend, beloved” [ibid., p. 620], i.e., it implies a form of address befitting only one’s own, not a slave, but a fellow tribesman, a member of one’s community.

All these terms—[5] —are in one way or another connected with the idea of freedom from restriction, that is, in the philosophical sense, negative freedom. However, in the Church’s teaching about Christ, freedom is understood in a different sense. This special kind of freedom, primal and natural, which Adam possessed before the Fall and which the Savior possessed, is denoted by the word αυτεξούσιον (αὐτός – “self” + ἐξούσια – “power”) and derives from the legal expression “the power to dispose of oneself.” Interpreting this term in a theological context, St. Maximus the Confessor uses it in light of the theology of creation and that original state of nature, which must be perceived by man as the only true one, corresponding to the Creator’s plan. He asserts that everything created by God is endowed with a certain energy or will to exist, thanks to which it can be said to exist. In non-rational creatures, this natural will exists, but it is not called free, since they are not self-aware and simply act naturally, realizing the design that God has placed within them. In contrast to them, man is created rational and capable of choosing his own path. At the same time, before the Fall, man was not burdened by the complexity of choice and acted freely in accordance with the logos of his nature, that is, the design implanted in him by God. Speaking of this, St. Maximus writes that “the natural [movements] of thinking beings are not compelled”[6], that is, they are free. But they are free not in the sense of being able to choose between good and evil, as man does after the Fall, but in the sense of striving to fulfill God’s will without being burdened by doubts, fear of error, ignorance, and everything else. It is no coincidence that St. Maximus the Confessor calls virtue “the freedom of the soul”[7].

Thus, Christ is the perfect man; He is not burdened by the difficulty of choice, but possesses true freedom as self-mastery. In the Gospel, He says to His disciples: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work” (John 4:34), and every Christian, as His disciple, is called to make this the task of his life. The freedom of the disciple, who through baptism has entered into a special relationship with Christ, becomes for him the task of making his life Christ-like, in the words of the apostle: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20).

With the coming of Christ—and in His person—the law, as is well known, finds its true fulfillment (Matt. 5:17). He came to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to give a “new commandment,” the observance of which makes a person His disciple and an “heir to the Kingdom.” At the same time, we know that this Kingdom “is taken by force, and those who strive for it seize it” (Matt. 11:12). Thus, the moral law, the law of love, finds its justification and can be understood only in an eschatological perspective, in, life in Christ. In the words of the Apostle John the Theologian, “Whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). These words of the Apostle of Love bring us back to the Gospel teaching that God became man. The importance of these words lies in the fact that they allow us to correctly comprehend the purpose of our life, which St. Irenaeus of Lyons briefly described when he called upon us to follow Christ, Who: “became what we are, so that we might become what He is”[8] .

Holiness and the Dignity of the Person

In Holy Scripture, God is called Holy. It is traditionally understood that calling God this implies that He is absolutely other and radically distinct from the world He creates. It is precisely this otherness that is reflected in the word “holy” קָדוֹש (qds), which can be translated as “set apart.” However, given that God’s attribute cannot depend on the existence of the world, which has a beginning, we must acknowledge that holiness as an attribute is deeper than the literal meaning of the Hebrew term. Given that the category of holiness is traditionally associated with the concept of perfection, we can say that God is holy in the sense that He fully possesses all the perfections of His nature ([9] ). At the same time, God creates nothing foreign to Himself, but creates everything perfect in its own measure; therefore, His creations are called “very good” καλα λίαν (Gen. 1:31). It is important to understand that the Greek word καλός, which is translated as “good” (in Slavonic, “dobry”), means “good” in an absolute sense—a quality that is evident to all. At the same time, one cannot say that there is some measure of goodness to which God conforms. He is as He is, and since the world was created by Him, goodness in the world is that which corresponds to the Creator’s will. The necessity of conforming to God’s will and His holiness precludes any relativism, as it contradicts the nature of man, created in the image of God.

According to St. Maximus the Confessor, upon creating man, God endowed him with four divine attributes: “being, eternity, goodness, and wisdom. Of these, He bestowed the first two upon the creature, and the latter two upon his moral faculties”.[10] Moreover, while being and eternity are given to man, he must freely acquire goodness and wisdom. Having received the image of God as a collection of certain perfections accessible to him, man is called upon to freely acquire them subjectively through personal effort. Unlike the entire created world, he is created perfect but not complete, called to attain holiness as the fulfillment of that for which he was created by the holy God. In an eschatological perspective, this holiness is associated with deification, which, according to St. Maximus the Confessor, is the true completion of human creation.[11]

In the modern world, the idea of the human likeness to God has found a unique expression in the concept of human dignity, traditionally understood as the value of the human person. Here, dignity is understood as inherent in every person and inalienable. The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Although seemingly secular, this statement essentially articulates the Christian view of humanity, provided that the concepts of “freedom” and “rights” are understood in their Christian sense. At the same time, when understood in the spirit of atheistic humanism, this thesis not only affirms the value of the human person but, along with it, recognizes the value of any choice—including sinful ones—and of freedom understood in a sinful way. Naturally, man is created by God to be free, and God does not prevent him from exercising that freedom in a sinful manner; however, in this case, from a Christian perspective, man acts unworthily. And while he cannot lose the very image of God, he forfeits the fruits of a godly, worthy life. In other words, dignity is indeed given from the beginning and the possibility of being worthy is inalienable, but dignity—one’s own dignity—must be revealed and actualized. This is partly reflected in linguistic data. Thus, in Greek, ἄξιος originally meant the tilting of a scale, balancing, bringing into alignment. In this sense, to be worthy meant to live up to one’s social status. With this understanding in mind, the apostle writes: “For this reason we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of the calling…” (2 Thess 1:11). For the apostle, it is evident that worthiness is achieved through inner effort, in which a person strives to live up to the calling of a Christian. Although the idea of human worth was present in the philosophy of Aristotle or the Stoics, it is only within biblical culture that it finds its foundation in the concept of man’s likeness to God.

The concept that corresponds to holiness in the practical sphere is righteousness. In the true sense of the word, only God is Righteous; however, man, as His image, can strive toward it. Human righteousness is usually understood as a state in which one’s actions correspond to God’s plan for him. From the very beginning of human existence, the Lord reveals this plan to man in the form of commandments. The concepts of righteousness and love will be discussed in detail in the relevant chapters; however, when speaking of the dogmatic foundations of morality, it is essential to remember that the quintessence of all commandments—and thus the essence of all righteousness—is love (Romans 13:8–10), the source and example of which is the Triune God.

The Aspiration for Fellowship and Love

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is often perceived by Christians as the farthest thing from the ordinary and human. At the same time, it is precisely the human being who is called to be “God’s vicegerent” in the world, living his or her life “in the image of God.” To understand the essence of this life more deeply, it is worth turning to the words with which the Book of Genesis describes the eternal counsel in relation to how human beings are created.

In the vast majority of cases, when addressing humanity and speaking of Himself, God uses the singular. However, the eternal counsel is a conversation among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and when speaking of His image, God uses the plural: “in our image” (Gen. 1:26). In these words, Christian exegetes have seen a veiled account of the mystery of multiplicity within unity, to which man is called in his own measure. To be “in the image of God” means for him “to be in the image of the Trinity.” To emphasize this idea, in the second chapter God says, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Moreover, in the fifth chapter of Genesis, Moses uses a construction similar to the one we saw in the first chapter regarding God, but now it refers to the highest creation: “When God created man, He created him in the likeness of God; male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them ‘man’ on the day they were created” (Gen. 5:2). God gives the single name “man” to two, a man and a woman, because God Himself is one in three Persons. People are called to communion because they are created in the image of God, in whom “it is impossible to conceive of any division or separation such that the Son would be without the Father, or the Spirit separated from the Son; on the contrary, we find between Them a certain ineffable and inconceivable communion (κοινωνία), as well as a division”.[12]

Traditionally, when speaking of this communion, one recalls Christ’s words addressed to the Father in prayer: “Father, may they be one, just as We are one” (John 17:21) and understands unity to mean unity in love. Thus, speaking of the Triune God, V.N. Lossky writes: “The Father would not be a true Person if He were not wholly turned ‘toward’ (πρός) the Other Persons, wholly in communion with Those Whom He makes Persons, and thus, in the wholeness of His love, equal to Himself”[13]. Placed within the context of Moral Theology, the doctrine of the Triune God allows us to point to the “practical consequences of the Trinitarian faith”[14] and to formulate a deeper justification for the commandment of love, which ceases to be a didactic exhortation and turns out to be rooted in human nature itself. This commandment can be realized in a wide variety of circumstances: in marriage, in a parish or monastic community, and so on. Thus, the absolute value of love is rooted not in some higher principle or dead idea, but in the Living God, in the relationships among the Divine Persons.

Materiality and the Capacity for Creativity

Many philosophical and Gnostic teachings of antiquity were characterized by a view of matter as the source of evil. Everything physical came under suspicion in one way or another, ranging from marital relations to dietary practices. In contrast, the biblical view of matter is grounded in trust in the good God, who not only created matter but also described the entire created world and humanity within it as “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

In the Incarnation, God reveals to us the fullness of His plan for humanity. Jesus Christ is not only true God but also true Man, with a material body and a rational soul. In this regard, the Church’s teaching on the human nature of Christ proves to be central to moral teaching. In its struggle against Docetism, the Church emphasized the reality of Christ’s body, and thus the reality of the natural processes associated with the life of His body. In the context of human moral life, this is important because the life of the soul manifests itself through the states and actions of the body. The physical processes occurring in our body are not inherently bad if they develop “according to nature.” Furthermore, the condition of the body influences the condition of the soul and its actions, their character and content, which will be discussed in more detail in due course. Finally, the assertion that matter is good allows us to see value in earthly life, which, when properly perceived, becomes a school of obedience that God originally intended for man. Created to rule, he, as a spiritual-material being, was called to live in the material world according to spiritual laws.

The Christian View on the Question of the Meaning of Life

The question of the meaning of life is one of the oldest so-called “cursed questions” that torment humanity. Throughout history, many both positive and negative answers have been given to this question. In the history of culture, the question of meaning has been formulated in various ways. Often, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh or the dialogue between Midas and Selene, the discussion does not focus literally on the meaning or purpose of life, but on what turns out to be best for a person. Among the Old Testament authors, the only one who spoke directly and repeatedly about meaning in this vein was Solomon. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, he writes: “I have come to understand that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and do good while they are alive. And if anyone can eat, drink, and find pleasure in all their labor, this is a gift from God” (Eccl 3:12–13; see also 2:24, 5:17, 8:15). In this context, it is important to note two ideas. First, besides happiness, the best thing for a person is the good deeds they are called to perform while they are alive. And second, the satisfaction a person feels from their own labor is a gift from God. In the New Testament, this thought of Solomon is repeated almost verbatim by the Apostle Paul, who writes to the Ephesians: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10).

__

The Meaning of Human Life from a Theological Perspective

The specificity of the religious and, in particular, Christian view of the meaning of life lies in the fact that the source of this meaning is always the Creator. The very idea of the existence of the Creator of the world—that is, the One who is independent of the world and creates it according to His will—necessarily implies that the world is not random; it has an internal logic and a purpose for which it exists. This means that a person who wishes to live a meaningful life must not invent meaning for themselves, but discover it by turning to the One who created them, to know God’s will for themselves.

As people of faith, Christians trust Him, in that they are created capable of achieving the set goal. Moreover, we are made in such a way that God’s will is literally natural to us, embedded in our very nature. In this sense, Socrates was right when he said that a person must “know oneself,” just as those, who said that we attain happiness if we “live in accordance with nature.” This is precisely why depictions of many Greek philosophers, as those who guided the pagans to Christ, can be found in the narthexes of Christian churches. However, despite all their correctness, they did not attain the fullness of true knowledge. Despite the depth of their reflection, to know the truth, it is not enough to turn inward, because to achieve the supernatural goal of deification, supernatural revelation is necessary. A meeting between the creature and the Creator is necessary, because He is the beginning of all things.

Thus, the goal of human life is defined, and we associate it with a supernatural state which we call deification. At the same time, to ponder the meaning of life is to ask: why must a person live in order to attain deification? Why did God not create man deified from the very beginning?

Naturally, the question of meaning posed in this way lies to some extent beyond our competence, since God created man as He saw fit. Why it was so, and not otherwise, is the mystery of His will. And yet, having the opportunity to reflect on this in the context of all of Holy Scripture, we can ponder what is valuable in man and why, of all living creatures on earth, it is he who is called to deification.

Having created man in His own image and likeness, God placed him in paradise and set certain tasks before him. Naturally, many animals were capable of eating the same fruits as man. However, the actions of animals are unconscious; they simply follow their instincts. Unlike them, man, to whom a command has been given, has the freedom to obey it or to disobey it. By placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before man and giving the commandment, God, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, did so “so that good might belong no less to the one who chooses [man] than to the One who planted its seeds [God]”[15]. God creates man in His own image, but gives him the opportunity to freely assimilate it, to agree with it, to make it truly his own.

In other words, if the goal of human life is deification—which is not imposed on us by God as if we were robots, but offered to us as free beings—then the meaning of life as a process is constant and free agreement with Him in everything we do, think, and feel, in everything that depends on us. To put it very simply, one could say that the meaning of life is to become what God intended us to be. It is no coincidence that the wise Solomon wrote: “The essence of the whole matter is this: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl 12:13). Within the Old Testament worldview, this meant keeping the Law of Moses. However, in the New Testament era, the Law is abolished: “For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and all the others are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Romans 13:8–9). Thus, one could say that, in practice, the meaning of human life consists in love.

[1] St. Gregory the Theologian. First Epistle to the Presbyter Cledonius, pp. 12–13

[2] John of Damascus, the Venerable.

[3] Beekes, R. S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2010. p. 408

[4] Kleins Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged, one-volume edition. Elsevier, 2003. p. 585

[5] The Russian word svoboda, derived from the root *svobь or *svoj, is associated with the idea of a fellow tribesman who is in the “position of a free, member of his own clan” ([5] ), clearly referring specifically to “freedom from.” The original meaning of the Slavic word “svodny” boils down to the fact that a person is “one of us,” i.e., a “fellow tribesman,” and “not a slave.”

[6] The Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological Controversies of the 7th Century / Ed. D. A. Pospelov. Moscow, 2004. p. 157.

[7] Maximus the Confessor, St. On Various Doubts in Sts. Gregory and Dionysius / Trans. Archimandrite Nektarios (Yashunsky). Moscow, 2006. p. 57.

[8] St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching / Translated by Prot. P. Preobrazhensky, N. I. Sagarda. — St. Petersburg: “Oleg Abyshko Publishing House,” 2008, — p. 452.

[9] Domuschi, S. Holiness / S. Domuschi // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Edited by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. Vol. 62. – Moscow: Orthodox Religious Organization Church-Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia,” 2021. – p. 199.

[10] Maximus the Confessor, St. Selected Works / St. Maximus the Confessor [trans. and intro., comment. and append. by A. I. Sidorov]. – Moscow: Palomnik, 2004. – p. 172.

[11]__ See: Maximus the Confessor, St. Ambigua. Ambiguities on Thomas (Ambigua ad Thomam), Ambiguities on John (Ambiguam ad Iohannem) / St. Maximus the Confessor; translated from the Ancient Greek by D. A. Chernoglavov and A. M. Shufrin; scholarly editing, preface, and commentary by G. I. Benevich. – Moscow: Eksmo, 2020 – p. 254

(Amb. Ioan. 7)__

[12] Basil the Great, St. To Gregory, his brother (38) // Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, 2009. p. 507.

[13] Lossky, V. N. Essays on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology / Translated from the French by Sister Magdalene (V. A. Rashchikova). – 2nd ed., rev. and expanded. — STSL, 2012. — p. 417.

[14] Callistus (Wear), Metropolitan. The Holy Trinity—A Paradigm of the Human Person // International Conference “The Most Holy Trinity,” Moscow: Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, 2001. — p. 297.

[15] Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 45, on Holy Pascha / Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2007. p. 562.

The Commandments of Eden __

The theological account of the creation of humankind traditionally begins with the statement that humans were created in the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:27). However, it is often overlooked that in the preceding verse, God not only speaks of the creation itself but also explains its purpose. The creation of man “in the image and likeness” is explained by the purpose for which God created him. He must be this way because he is called to “rule… over all the earth” (Gen. 1:26), to be the earthly image of the heavenly Ruler. This allowed some Syrian exegetes to compare Adam’s role in the world to that of a statue of the emperor, which was to stand in the city, signifying his loyalty to the state authority. As early as the 20th century, V.N. Lossky spoke of this as follows: “The world follows man, because it is, as it were, the nature of man… And this anthropocosmic connection is realized when the connection between the image of man and his Prototype—God—is realized”[1]. Man is created for deification, but it is not given to him; rather, it is offered as a gift that he must freely accept. The path to this acceptance lies in man’s fulfillment of God’s will, which is the fundamental and all-encompassing category of his existence.

As is known from the Book of Genesis, God creates man and settles him in a place called “the Garden of Eden.” Literally, the word גַּן (gan) means not only “garden” but also “vegetable garden,” that is, a special and specifically set-apart place. The essence of this separation is that God creates conditions for Adam in which he must grow strong in fulfilling God’s will, learn to rule over the earth, beginning this skill in paradise and, of course, with himself. Immediately after creation, God blesses man and gives him a series of commandments designed to show him the path he must follow.

The first commandment: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” __

So, addressing man, God says: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28).

It may seem that, in the context of this lofty New Testament commandment of love, the command to multiply numerically does not lead to the acquisition of spiritual skills and is generally more closely associated with the values of the tribal community. Furthermore, it is traditionally recalled that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” was also given to the fish and the birds (Gen. 1:22), from which one might conclude that this command links humanity to the animal world. This, however, is by no means something to be despised, since it is part of God’s plan, who created everything precisely in this way.

Furthermore, to better understand what God is calling humanity to through the first commandment, we must recall the reason why He created the world in the first place. Speaking of this, St. John of Damascus writes: “Out of an abundance of goodness, He desired that something should come into being that would in the future enjoy His blessings and share in His goodness”[2]. If, then, God creates the world so that there may be those with whom He can share the goodness of existence, there is nothing surprising in the fact that He gives the first humans the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” the next generations. St. Anastasius of Sinai speaks directly about the fact that this is not merely reproduction in the manner of all other living creatures, but a special creative ability given to man in his physicality: “Man creates and gives birth, by the grace of God, to [another] man; he also builds houses and cities, [cultivates] plants, [invents] crafts, creates words and sciences—[and he does all this] being in the image of God”[3]. In other words, the ability to reproduce, which is given to speechless creatures as instinctive and unconscious, is given to man as creative and conscious. God created him “in His own image” and gave him the ability to create/beget children, passing on this “image.” It is no coincidence that it is said: “Adam lived one hundred and thirty [230] years and begot [a son] in his own likeness [and] in his own image” (Gen. 5:3).

When St. Maximus the Confessor speaks of God giving Adam some of His perfections at creation, the point is also that He gave him the ability to impart these perfections to his descendants through the creative act of birth. However, to impart them precisely in the form in which God imparted them to him: being and eternity, as belonging to nature, and “moral faculties—goodness and wisdom—so that the creature might be made partaker of what He Himself is in essence”[4]. There is no consensus in Tradition regarding the formal aspect of fulfilling the first commandment or the manner in which human procreation should occur. However, when comparing various positions, it is important to remember that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24) was said even before the Fall and, most importantly, was articulated by Christ as God’s will, which was such from the beginning (Matt 19:4–6).

Thus, the first commandment is a creative commandment, but beyond the mere birth of children, it implies something more. First, by reinterpreting the biblical parallelism that seemingly doubles the meaning of “be fruitful and multiply,” many authors have argued that this refers not only to physical procreation but also to spiritual upbringing. The result of fulfilling the commandment should be the filling of the earth with people. However, this filling is not merely physical, but meaningful. It is assumed that the resources embedded in the earth can be extracted. Since these resources vary from place to place, the need for them implies human interaction, which, before the Fall, of course, should not have been burdened by rivalry and strife. In fact, St. Basil the Great writes precisely this: “Thus, these words apply to the speechless as well, but they take on a special meaning for us, who possess the image with which we have been honored. For they grow physically, while we grow spiritually; and while they fill the earth with their multitude, we fill the earth associated with us through good deeds, that is, we perform physical service”[5].

The Second Commandment: “Take Possession of the Earth and Rule Over It” __

In the second commandment, which God gives to man, we hear an echo of what was said even at creation: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28).

The command to subdue the earth implies that man, in his very dominion, can become like the Creator. It is directly linked to the concept of “αυτεξούσιον” (autexousion), self-rule, which is the most important characteristic of human nature. At the same time, the verb כָּבַשׁ (kāḇaš), which is translated as “to subdue and subjugate” and even “to enslave,” can be rendered as “to be subdued or subjugated,” because unlike God, who reigns by nature, man reigns by the Creator’s gift and may use it in various ways. It may seem that this commandment is given as a simple addition to the command to “fill the earth,” yet St. Basil the Great clarifies: “fill it with the power He has granted… for dominion over the earth”[6] . Given that the word “dominion” can imply a meaning associated with violence, we understand that “dominion” over the earth, as well as over everything on it, can take different forms. Unlike animals, man has been given freedom, which St. John of Damascus calls an adornment[7], because thanks to this, the one who was created to rule directs his abilities independently, in his own way, and toward his own goal. St. Anthony the Great writes on this as well: “God created the soul free and self- governing, and it is free to act as it will—for good or for evil”[8]. At the same time, of course, God does not leave man without guidance, suggesting to him exactly how this self-governing dominion should be exercised.

The Third Commandment: “All this shall be food for you” __

The third commandment, in a sense, complements the second, as it speaks of the material basis of human life, implying not merely possession but also the possibility of consumption. Although the question of whether humans could have managed without food in paradise is a matter of debate, it is important to acknowledge that God’s words are never meaningless or empty. Moreover, the commandment regarding food is unique in that it is repeated twice. Immediately after creation, God says: “I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with fruit yielding seed; to you they shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29). At the same time, in the second chapter, speaking of man’s dwelling in the Garden of Eden, He adds: “You may freely eat of every tree in the garden” (Gen. 2:16). Dominion over the earth is manifested in the fact that man is given the opportunity to use the fruits of the earth. But he may use only that which can be reproduced. The emphasis on reproducibility is made through the mention of seeds, as that which allows plants to be grown anew. In other words, this means that the consumption permitted to man must be of a sparing nature, implying the preservation of what has been created.

The Fourth Commandment: “To cultivate and preserve” __

In the fourth commandment, God specifies exactly what this stewardship should entail. He brings Adam into the Garden of Eden, which turns out to be a place for learning and acquiring the skills necessary to live “in His image,” and commands him to “cultivate and keep it.” The word לְעָבְדָהּ (l-ʕoḇḏāh) is translated as “to till” or “to cultivate,” though it can also be translated simply as any work on the land. The word לְשָׁמְרָֽהּ (l-šomrāh) is translated as “to keep it” in the sense of “to observe,” “to preserve,” or even “to guard.” Although this commandment speaks of the nature of possession, it can also be called a creative commandment, since it involves the transformation of matter and, in this capacity, is connected to the first commandment. If the birth of children, which was a special kind of creation, might still have seemed to be something that connects humans to the animal world, material creation already implied not only the use of what is given, but also the creation of something new.

St. Gregory Palamas places human creativity remarkably high in this sense. Speaking of the fact that humans, more so than angels, are created in the image of God, he asserts: “Indeed, we alone among all [rational] creatures possess not only mind and reason but also the senses. That which is naturally united with reason opens up a diverse multitude of arts, sciences, and knowledge: agriculture, house-building, the creation of things out of nothing—of course, not out of absolute non-being, for that is already God’s work—all this is given only to humans”[9]. In other words, man proves capable not only of transforming—that is, reshaping and perfecting the world—but also of creating fundamentally new things, creating literally out of nothing, even if only relative.

Although the words used to describe the task set before man imply labor, given the nature of how human life changed after the Fall, we understand that labor in Paradise was not difficult. However, the experience of this joyful labor is available to the righteous even after the Fall. Thus, Scripture says: “You shall eat the fruit of your labor; blessed are you, and it shall be well with you” (Ps. 127:2).

The Fifth Commandment: “You shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” __

However, the commandment regarding the transformation of the material world is only an outward expression of the labor that awaits man. The fifth commandment, unlike all the others, is not of a blessing but of a warning nature. Allowing man to eat from the trees of the Garden of Eden, which he is to cultivate and keep, God draws his attention to the tree that is “in the midst” and says: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). It is clear, however, that the tree itself was not deadly. Explaining this, St. Gregory the Theologian writes: “It was good for those who used it in due season (for this tree, in my opinion, was contemplation, which only the experienced may safely approach), but not good for the simple and for those who are intemperate in their desire…”[10]. In this regard, it is often said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a tree of obedience. But what do we say about a person who knows how to conduct himself properly? We say that he knows how to control himself. Thus, from a moral point of view, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the tree through which Adam acquired the skill of dominion, only in this case not external dominion, but internal dominion, dominion over himself. In the words of St. Macarius, he was called to “cultivate the soil of his heart”[11].

The self-rule inherent in Adam by nature had to undergo a process so that man, growing spiritually, might attain what St. Maximus the Confessor called “steadfastness and skill in virtue and knowledge”[12]. This final remark by St. Maximus testifies that self-control—a skill Adam was meant to develop—is not an end in itself. His self-restraint was necessary not for the sake of self-restraint itself, but for the sake of true creativity, which is accessible only to those who have learned to act in accordance with God’s will.

The Sixth Commandment: “Whatever man calls every living creature” __

The final commandment given to Adam calls him to independent action. Scripture says that God brought the animals and birds to Adam “to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that would be its name” (Gen. 2:19). Often, when reading this verse, people wonder what these names were, in what language they might have sounded, and whether Adam possessed discursive thought at all, or whether he perceived the essence of each animal without needing what we today understand as a name or title. However, in the context of moral theology, something entirely different is important.

The commandment remarkably demonstrates Adam’s autonomy and, at the same time, indicates that he acts in harmony with God. The Creator brings the animals to Adam to see how he will name them. This means that Adam, as a disciple, acts independently in the presence of God in order to acquire the skill of acting in the world “as God.” Commenting on this commandment, St. Ephrem the Syrian says: “God granted man dominion, made him a participant in creation, clothed him with glory…”[13]. Bishop Basil of Seleucia speaks of this in even greater detail: “God says to Adam: ‘Be, Adam, the creator of names, since you cannot be the creator of the creatures themselves… We share with you the glory of creative wisdom. Let them know Me as the Creator according to the law of nature, and you as the ruler according to the meaning of the name. Give names to those to whom I have given being’[14].

Turning to the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, we see that the commandments God gives to man become stages for him, connected with creation and dominion. He is called to create beings like himself through the body God has given him, to possess the earth and feed on its fruits, but to do so in such a way that the earth entrusted to his care develops while preserving its identity in accordance with God’s plan. On this path, man was to rise to spiritual creativity and become a “co-worker in God’s divine purposes”[15], that is, a true co-worker with God. As has already been said, man’s creative abilities are part of the image in which he was created. Creativity turns out to be the response to the divine call to spiritual growth, from image to likeness[16]. Of course, the commandments given to man before the Fall guide him along the path that all people are called to follow. In turn, this means that despite differences in talents and characters, there is a creativity that God expects from each of us. It is precisely this that St. John Chrysostom has in mind when, as if quoting the Creator, he says: “I created the earth and the heavens; I give you creative power: create the earth as the heavens”[17].

The Fall and Its Moral Consequences __

The Concept of Sin

The primary term used in the language of the Old Testament to denote sin was the word חֲטָאָה (ḥăṭāʔā h), which meant “to miss the mark, to make a mistake.” A word with a similar meaning, חֵטְא (ḥēṭ ʔ ), which meant “sin, crime, transgression,” traced its roots to an Akkadian word meaning “deficiency.” In both cases, it is important to note that the original meaning of these words is not connected with a violation of commandments, but with the disruption that an action brings to existence. For example, the word חֲטָאָה (ḥăṭāʔā h ) is first used in the Old Testament by God when He addresses Cain: “Sin (חֲטָאָה /ḥăṭāʔā h ) lies at the door, but you must rule over it.”

In the language of the New Testament, the primary term denoting “sin” is ἁμαρτία, which refers both to sin itself and to the painful, distorted state of human nature that became the norm of existence after the Fall. As in Hebrew, Greek had terms denoting specific offenses: παράπτωμα , and παράβασις, but these referred only to specific actions.

Discussing the Fall in the modern world proves to be extremely complex. Undoubtedly, most people understand that human beings are imperfect creatures and that their ideas about good and evil are far from always being put into practice. At the same time, Western society refuses to accept medieval notions of sin as a general guilt before God with which a person is literally born, and along with this, rejects the idea of sinfulness as such. Undoubtedly, Eastern and Western teachings on original sin and its influence on humanity differ; however, the very idea of the first sin’s influence on the entire subsequent life of Adam and his descendants is very important. Thus, H. Yannaras asserts that “in Christianity, the concept of the Fall is not merely one aspect of anthropology, but its central axis, or the key necessary for understanding humanity, the world, and history…”[18]. At the same time, it is quite evident that modern human sciences—anthropology and psychology—perceive man as he is, rejecting not only the idea of his created nature but also the idea of his original otherness, spirituality, moral purity, and orientation toward God.

In Scripture, sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4). However, it is undoubtedly not so much a matter of laws or any other norms external to man, but rather of the laws or norms of the universe that were instilled in him by God at creation. It is noteworthy that, at the linguistic level, words expressing the concept of sin are often associated with the idea of a distorted and perverted action, which was originally meant to be correct and upright. Thus, the Hebrew word חטא, like the Greek ἁμαρτία, equally means a misstep or a mistake. Likewise, the Slavic word грехъ, which in Old Russian meant a mistake or misstep, etymologically traces back to the Indo-European root *groi-so, which signifies curvature. Moreover, it is evident that this curvature is not morally neutral but rather one that violates the original design.

The Circumstances of the Fall __

The circumstances in which the Fall took place are widely known. Without delving into the Church’s dogmatic teaching itself, it is worth emphasizing what is important from the perspective of moral theology regarding the circumstances of the Fall.

First and foremost, it is important to note that the tree whose fruit is forbidden is called the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” This alone places the tree within the moral realm of what is right and wrong and suggests that eating the fruit could lead a person to walk the path of good and evil. The Hebrew word דַּ֫עַת (dáʕaṯ) is translated as “knowledge, understanding, skill.” The latter meaning makes it particularly clear that we are dealing not with epistemological knowledge, but with experiential knowledge, or, as Prot. N. Ivanov puts it, “to know means to perceive within oneself another object, another nature, which until then was completely separate, as if it were outside the knowing subject”[19]. At the same time, it is very important to remember that good and evil, the knowledge of which was revealed to man through the tree, are, in the context of Moral Theology, not moral but ontological categories. Given that in God the actual and the ought are one, the world created by God bears the stamp of this unity.

So, first, the tree could have become for man a means of experiential knowledge of the good. The word טוֹב (ṭôḇ), which has been translated as “good,” also means “benefit,” “beauty,” “well-being,” “utility,” and even “happiness.” However, something else is even more important: this is the very same word God uses to describe His creation. In the first and second chapters of Genesis, it appears nine times in the account of creation, and each time it is emphasized that everything God creates is good and in accordance with His will. We must not forget that man was called to be a co-worker and co-creator with God, and for this, of course, he had to know God’s will, the fulfillment of which is “good.” St. Diadochus of Photiki speaks very accurately on this: “By nature, God alone is good; but man, too, through care for his character, becomes good”[20].

Second, the tree may have served as a means for humans to gain experiential knowledge of evil. It is very important that there is nothing associated with evil in the entire description of the created world. And even what might be called “not good” is introduced into the narrative more to emphasize that humans were created for fellowship than to actually indicate the existence of any imperfection, since the creation of man and woman is mentioned as early as the first day. The word רַע (raʕ), which has been translated as “evil,” is also translated as “wickedness, misfortune, ruin.” Furthermore, it is important to recall that, unlike good, which is understood as “that which is,” evil is understood as “that which is not.” According to the well-known formula of Blessed Diadochus of Photiki: “There is no evil in nature, nor is there anything evil by nature: for God created nothing evil”[21]. In this case, the knowledge of evil to which the tree may lead turns out to be the choice of that which is not in God’s world, that which does not correspond to His plan. In explaining what evil is, St. Basil the Great not coincidentally calls it “alienation from God”[22], and Blessed Diadochus even says: “When someone, in the lust of the heart, gives form to that which does not exist in essence, then that which the doer desires, begins to exist”[23]. In other words, through the fruits of the “tree,” Adam came to know “life according to God’s will,” which is called good, or “life according to one’s own will, which has not yet come to know God’s will,” which is called evil. The issue, of course, was not the tree itself. The attitude toward the tree became an attitude toward the commandment, and the attitude toward the commandment became an attitude toward the One who gave it. The fulfillment or violation of this commandment served as a prototype for all subsequent ones, since here, in the truest sense, the kinship between ethics and ontology was revealed—good and evil turned out to be directly correlated with what is ontologically necessary and creative for human existence, or, conversely, unacceptable and destructive to it. According to Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), “The essence of sin lies not in the violation of an ethical norm, but in the departure from eternal divine life, for which man was created and to which he is naturally, that is, by his very nature, called”[24]. In essence, standing before the tree, man found himself faced with the opportunity to fulfill the meaning of his life and advance along the path toward its goal, or to render it meaningless, because the false path did not lead to the goal.

Man was created by God as a hierarchical being, in whom the mind (spirit) is called to guide the powers of the soul. However, in this guidance, the mind (spirit) had to be strengthened through practice so that faithfulness to God would become a habit. The desire to become like God was natural to man; it was instilled in him at creation; the image had to be actualized. At the same time, the path to actualization could be different—either in harmony with God or in opposition to Him. Considering that the Greek word for sin, “αμαρτία,” means a miss, one could say that on the path to actualizing godlikeness, man misses the mark. It is important to emphasize, however, that he does not simply miss the mark—for this could happen by mistake —but consciously misses the mark, consciously making a choice against God, which is the essence of sin.

After man received a warning from God about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he was to name the animals. As already mentioned, this was a process in which man penetrated the essence of God’s creations and became a co-creator by naming them. To Eve, who was standing by the tree, the serpent suggests looking at the tree not as God looked at it. To persuade Eve to do this, he distorts the image of God, portraying Him as One who supposedly fears competition, for, in the words of the serpent, “God knows that on the day you eat of them, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Of course, in part, this is exactly what would have happened, since “perfect” people would have been able to eat these fruits. However, Eve—and Adam after her—rejected self-discipline. People decided they were already ready to act “like gods”; they believed that the luminous garment, of which some Fathers spoke, had become their own. Thus, instead of looking at the tree through God’s eyes, Eve makes a choice that contradicts this perspective, and therefore contradicts her own nature. She agrees with the lie about God, and the tree appears before her in a different light: it is “good (טוֹב /ṭôḇ) for food, and that it is pleasing to the eyes and desirable, because it gives knowledge” (Gen 3:6). In speaking of Eve’s perspective, the chronicler uses the same word with which God characterizes the world He creates. Eve is no longer oriented toward God; in attempting to “be like God,” she herself decides what to call “good” and what to call “evil.” But Eve, like Adam, is not self-sufficient; their imagination has no foundation and results in the tree, which was meant to be their path to godlikeness, being seen by her first and foremost as food that is “good to eat, pleasing to the eye, and a source of knowledge.” She desired this knowledge and “partaken” of it, thereby tasting disobedience.

[1] Lossky, V.N. Essays on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology / Translated from the French by Mon. Magdalene (V.A. Rashchikova). – 2nd ed., rev. and expanded. — STSL, 2012. — p. 459

[2] John of Damascus, St. The Fountain of Knowledge. Moscow, 2002. p. 187 (Book 2, Chapter 2)

[3] Anastasius of Sinai, the Venerable. Questions and Answers / Translated from Greek, with an introductory article and commentary by A. I. Sidorov. Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2015. – pp. 78–79.

[4] St. Maximus the Confessor. Selected Works / St. Maximus the Confessor [trans. and intro., commentary, and appendices by A. I. Sidorov]. – Moscow: Palomnik, 2004. – p. 172.

[5] Basil the Great, St. Discourses on the Six Days. Discourse 8 // Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2008. p. 449.

[6] Ibid., p. 440.

[7] John of Damascus, The Source of Knowledge. Moscow, 2000, p. 232.

[8] St. Anthony the Great, Teachings / Compiled by E. A. Smirnova. Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Press, 2008. p. 90.

[9] Cited in: Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern) , The Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950, p. 364.

[10] Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, on the Epiphany or on the Nativity of the Savior / Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2007, pp. 446–447.

[11] Macarius of Egypt, the Venerable. Discourse 26 // Spiritual Discourses. Moscow, 1880, p. 249.

[12] Venerable Maximus the Confessor , On Various Doubts of Saints Gregory and Dionysius (the Ambiguists), Translated from the Greek and with notes by Archimandrite Nektarios — Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Theology, and History of St. Thomas, 2006. — p. 271.

[13] Ephrem the Syrian, on the Exegesis of the First Book, that is, the Book of Genesis // Works. Vol. VI. — Moscow: St. Basil the Great Russian Publishing Center, 2014. — p. 205

[14] Cited in: Cyprian (Kern) , Archimandrite, The Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950, p. 198.

[15] Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, on the Epiphany or on the Nativity of the Savior / Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2007, — p. 446

[16] See St. Basil the Great. First Discourse on the Creation of Man in the Image of God // Works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. – Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2008, p. 442.

[17] St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy. Discourse XV // Works in 12 vols. Vol. 11, Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1905. — p. 735.

[18] Yannaras, H. The Faith of the Church / H. Yannaras [trans. G.V. Vdovina, ed. A.I. Kyrlezhev]. – Moscow: Center for the Study of Religions, 1992. – p. 121

[19] Ivanov ,Prot.N. , And God Said… — Klin: “Christian Life,” — 2005, — p. 227

[20] St. Diadochus of Photiki. Works. Vol. 1. – Kyiv, 1903, p. 23.

[21] St. Diadochus of Photiki. Works. Vol. 1. – Kyiv, 1903, p. 24.

[22] Basil the Great (Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia). Works: in 2 vols. / St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. – Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2008. – Vol. 1. – p. 649.

[23] St. Diadochus of Photiki. Works. Vol. 1. – Kyiv, 1903, p. 24.

[24] Sofroniy (Sakharov), Schemamonk, The Venerable Silouan the Athonite. — 3rd ed. — STSL, 2011., — p. 36

The Consequences of the Fall

Having committed sin, man changed so profoundly within that he could no longer fully follow the blessings that had been given to him. The entire inner hierarchy was turned upside down, as evidenced, for example, by Eve’s perspective, which placed the taste of the fruit first and knowledge last. At the same time, it is important to understand that, when speaking of the consequences of sin, God never points to Himself as the source of the changes taking place, but rather points them out to man as natural consequences.

The command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, given in the first chapter of Genesis, is supplemented in the second chapter by Adam’s words that a man and a woman will be “one flesh.” Whatever is meant by this biblical expression, it is quite evident that it refers to the closest possible unity that was meant to exist between a man and a woman. This is precisely why Scripture identifies nakedness as the first consequence of the Fall: “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” (Gen. 3:7). The sensation of nakedness is merely a manifestation of the internal changes that began to take place within the human being. The fact is that for the ancients, nakedness was associated not with eroticism, but with shame, poverty, and a state of vulnerability. But where did this feeling come from? It became evidence that their relationship had radically changed. They felt the gaze of a stranger upon themselves, a gaze in which there was no longer any trust. And if, according to St. Isaac the Syrian, “love knows no shame… It is natural for love not to be ashamed and to forget its measure”[1], then in their consciousness, love gave way to shame and fear of one another.

Here, in the sphere of husband-wife relations, a distortion of the original hierarchy manifested itself, both within the individual and between people. The first manifests itself in the fact that the blessing to be fruitful and multiply, which was part of man’s creative activity as the “image of God,” becomes part of instinct. The Holy Fathers called this instinctuality—that is, mechanistic behavior and subjugation—the animal law that has penetrated human nature. Man was created as a rational and free being, whereas animals are subject to the life of the body and its needs. By yielding to the instinct of consumption and viewing the tree of knowledge as “food,” Eve let instinctiveness into human life as slavery to all that is material. The second aspect manifested itself in the fact that the relationship of partnership became one of subordination, since Eve was told that Adam “will rule over” her (Gen. 3:16).

However, the sense of hostility that would later manifest in accusations and a reluctance to take responsibility revealed an alienation far more terrifying. As a result of sin, not only did people become strangers to them—God became a stranger to them. According to some of the Holy Fathers, before sin, man was clothed in the light of God’s grace, and in the Fall, he took pride in himself, thinking this was his own greatness. The nakedness revealed to man after sin opened his eyes to his true condition, but he chose not to acknowledge it. In this context, one of the most significant consequences of the Fall in the moral sphere is the sickness of the conscience, which loses its ability to adequately discern good and evil and to show man the right path. Instead of turning to God, man persists in his resolve and makes himself his own clothing.

After the Fall, people hear the Creator’s voice from outside and try to hide. God comes to man as the One who is open to dialogue. He does not accuse him, but poses questions that will allow man to act responsibly and repent. Naturally, knowing the answer, He first asks, “Adam, where are you?” And, second, “Who told you that you were naked?” These questions did not require an answer, since Adam was supposed to find the answer within himself. How does he see his relationship with God? Why did the nakedness that existed before begin to trouble him so much? However, man’s conscience had become deceitful, and he responds according to the logic of the alienation that had already arisen. Adam blames his wife, who has become “that one” to him—that is, separated even at the level of language—and, along with his wife, God, who created her. A conscience afflicted by sin gives rise in man to the ability to construct a moral reality that will accompany him throughout history.

The commandment regarding the possession of the land that the descendants of Adam and Eve were to inhabit turned out to be what God expresses as: “Cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen. 3:17). The essence of this curse is that the purpose of the earth—that is, everything that man was meant to possess, everything he was meant to creatively transform—proves unattainable as a result of his fall. It is no coincidence that the curse is often understood as separation from the source of life. The earth remains the earth; it is merely “subject to futility” (Rom 8:20) for a time, because man, as the head of all creation, has strayed from the right path. The discord in the relationship with creation leads to a distortion of the image of its being. A distortion of the commandment regarding the eating of the fruit takes place. Intended to become a paradise, it becomes a place where “thorns and thistles” grow.

The commandment to cultivate and keep paradise also proves impossible to fulfill. The fact is that, on the level of physical activity, what is commanded becomes very difficult. Creative labor will become exhausting for man, and he will earn his food “by the sweat of his brow” (Gen. 3:19). However, the food on which he placed his emphasis by choosing the created fruit instead of the Creator will not make him immortal. God expresses another consequence of sin as follows: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Man became mortal, and this left a serious mark on his moral life. It is no coincidence that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle says that Adam’s descendants feared death so much that their entire lives “were held in bondage” (Heb. 2:15) to this fear. The essence of this bondage is very accurately conveyed by Ikuimenios of Trikkon: “People feared death as if they were guilty of this work. And the work of death is to be subject to and submit to sin”[2]. In other words, driven by the fear of death, man committed sins, including for the sake of avoiding death. The first act of this kind can be considered Adam’s self-justification and his accusation of Eve, in order to save himself from responsibility.

The consequence of violating the commandment “You shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17), which for man is connected with self-possession, is associated in the Tradition of the Church with what is called “leather garments.” The image of the leather garments can be interpreted in various ways, both as a certain outward sign given to the first parents by God and as a sign of their inner state. At the same time, the moral content of this concept lies in the fact that God, following the dialogue intended to lead the first parents to repentance, accepted their free decision, accepted their flawed and wounded state, and allowed them to remain so for a time. They refused repentance and reconciliation with the Creator, while He did not abandon His goal but changed the path to achieving it, in light of the state in which humanity found itself.

What, then, are the consequences of this state for moral life?

First, man’s relationship with God has changed. He was created such that participation in divine grace and love for the Creator were natural to him. After sin, God’s presence became painful and fearful to him (Gen. 3:8, Job 7:19). The image of God was distorted, and the paths to knowing God became inaccessible.

Second, his relationship with himself changed—specifically, with what we today call his volitional faculties. Having made a conscious choice that contradicted not only God’s will but also his own nature, man became dependent on that choice. Something emerged within him that, in patristic terminology, was called the gnomic will. He lost the ability to simply act in accordance with what was instilled in him and is now forced to choose between good and evil, weighing his options and tormented by ignorance, by a lack of understanding of the very essence of what is happening. In other words, his will became diseased, and the self-rule to which he was called was replaced within him by the power of the soul’s various forces, between which the mind is forced to waver.

Thirdly, his relationship with his neighbor has changed. Upon hearing God’s question: “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (Gen. 3:11), Adam placed all the blame on his wife and, indirectly, on the Creator who had given her to him. His wife, whom he had described as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), is now perceived as an outsider, and in an effort to avert the anticipated punishment, Adam finds himself willing to sacrifice her. On the other hand, some see cunning in Adam’s words, the essence of which is that he tasted the fruit by trusting the one who was given by God. However, this assertion does not negate the main point—Adam understands that a catastrophe has occurred, but blames his wife and God for it.

Finally, fourthly, the life of his body changed. The laws of the animal world, which are commonly called “natural” or “innocent passions,” began to rule within him. Traditionally, these include “hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, weeping, mortality, fear of death, and anxiety”[3]. In and of themselves, they are not sins, since they do not depend on human will. At the same time, when a person is led by them, they go beyond what is natural and necessary, becoming “reproachable,” which manifests itself in sins.

In the context of such a human condition, death turns out to be that which can put an end to this wrongful development. God changes its purpose, since “He redirects death… not toward the person himself, but toward biological life and, thus, toward the decay that has overtaken the person”[4]. Thus, through death, a limit is set on sin and the distorted will.

[1] Isaac the Syrian, the Venerable, Ascetic Sayings. Sergiev Posad: STSL, 2008, p. 499.

[2] Ikumenios of Trikka, Venerable, Commentary on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews

[3] Hierotheos (Vlachos), Metropolitan. The Feasts of the Lord. Simferopol, 2003. p. 55

[4] Nellas, P. The Deification: Foundations and Perspectives of Orthodox Anthropology / Trans. from English by N.B. Larionov. — Moscow: Nikea, 2011. — p. 79.

Graph View

Backlinks