www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Death prior to the fall

I know that the punishment for the fall of Adam was death. Must we hold that this includes bodily death as well as spiritual death or is it possible to hold that natural, bodily death has always been a part of creation, but the fall caused spiritual death?

Also, if we must hold that Adam and Eve were created so that they would not have died (fallen asleep) bodily but would have lived on perpetually had they not fallen, then must we hold that that this is true of the whole created order? Can we hold that in the natural order the death of non human animals and plants naturally occurred even prior to the fall?

Growing up and being taught a literal interpretation of Genesis, we were taught that had Adam not sinned, nothing would have ever died. Plants and animals would have been immortal as well.

Joe

I believe this is also the Orthodox point of view, however, the other day in our Bible Study, we were also told that Christ gave us the chance for life w/o death, in the resurrected and transfigured body which we will have at the second coming. That is why the Orthodox are adamant against cremation of the body.

Alice

In the Western Catholic tradition, which started with the Greek fathers, and then continued with Augustine, Anselm, and many others, this question originated reflections that distinguished between the natural order and the supernatural order. This eventually was synthesized in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and the overall principle "grace does not destroy (take away, replace) nature, but perfects it".

In this view, all of Creation was made to function according to its own natural laws. In the case of man, he was given certain praeternatural gifts (not required by his nature itself), one of which was freedom from the necessity of dying. [Man could die, by accident or murder, but he need not die.] There were other gifts, as well, that enabled man to "converse" with God and the Angels, etc. These were seen as ancillary to man living in conversation with God Himself in Grace.

By sin, man lost the most important gift, "grace", the life of God within him, and also the ancillary gifts. Thus, man was no longer privileged to be able "not to die", and the law of nature became the rule.

With the Incarnation, Christ began the Restoration of man according to the ancient original plan, as part of man's Redemption. Only He, and His Mother, actually possessed the original gifts in toto; the rest of us, through the Sacraments experience the restoration only "in mystery" until the Resurrection of the Dead.

This summary is a brief sketch, not the whole picture. Most of the reasoning for the different distinctions depend on various understandings of passages from the Old and New Testaments. Since St. Thomas was writing about God (theology), and man only insofar as he related to God, the references are sprinkled throughout Aquinas's works, unfortunately.

Michael

References:
Supernatural and Preternatural Gifts of God [newadvent.org]

Just google "preternatural gifts".

Non-theological bonus for Tolkien fans on this matter: Article about Tolkien and Thomism [cts.org.au]

Michael, this is helpful.

I have three questions then.

1) In the pre-fallen world, would diseases, natural disasters, etc. have existed? These seem to be the results of natural laws.

2) Assuming that evolution is true for the moment, would then mean that when God elevated Adam and Eve from a pre-human state, that God endowed them with these gifts? Perhaps, God created a garden where they could remain immune to disease, natural disasters, etc?

3) if death is a part of the natural order and was so for nonhuman animals, was the struggle to live and the predator/prey relationship between animals in existence in the prefallen world?

Alice, does this view imply that prefallen man would have "fallen asleep" but in peace and grace? And would then simply await the resurrection?

Joe

Dear Joe,

I really don't know. Perhaps it does mean that man's body would be incorrupted, such as many of the saint's bodies, but that he would fall asleep anyway. Or maybe it means that we wouldn't fall asleep at all.

This is a good question. I will have to find out. I guess that I am not as inquisitive as you...sometimes I find that when I do try to intellectualize and understand too much, that my faith suffers a bit.

If Father Serge, Stephanos or Anthony know the answer to this, I would welcome their input.

Regards,
Alice

The creation story cannot be anything but allegory.

I am wondering though if it is permissible for Orthodox Christians to interpret the story as purely allegorical.

Joe

Joe,


I can only venture guesses here.

1) Immunity from disease and death were 2 of the preternatural gifts specifically. Also,

2) The Garden was the special providential environment, to use a modern word, that God gave them where they could be safe. He also provided them with the ability to perceive angels and to converse with them (also for their education and protection). When they sinned, an angel with a fiery sword was made to guard the Garden, lest they gain entry evermore, signifying the withdrawal of these special gifts.

3) I believe these thinkers would have noticed that in the Garden all living creatures ate "fruit", which did not destroy the plants, and flesh was not given them to eat. Only after the Flood was flesh given as "edible". So, I think they saw predator/prey situation as a consequence of man's fall (it infected the whole natural order). In Isaiah, I think, it speaks of the lion lying down with the lamb in the Messianic kingdom, signifying the resoration of the ancient original plan of God. Western Christians accepted that Hebrew view.

Best,
Michael

If we take modern science seriously it would seem impossible to deny the existance of "death" before the fall. I suppose if I were to argue this I would distinguish between physical cessation of life which really is only death analogously and spiritual death which is true death or separation from God. God said "In the day you eat of it (the forbidden fruit) you SHALL SURELY DIE." He did not say you will begin the process of dying. He said point blank, YOU WILL DIE ON THAT DAY. PERIOD. I take this to mean very simply that God did not have phsycial death in mind at all but the separation from him which we call SPiritual Death.

It seems to me that the biological life of animals and plants is simply not in view in the fall narrative. Suffering and pain do enter the picture, but of course, these are spiritual in origin even though they affect the physical world just as sin on our conscience creates pain for the body (guilty feelings or sometimes depression).

Further, at the risk of being accused of new age thought and/or pantheism, I'll say that it seems to me that though plants and animals have a higher "order" of life, it *must* be true in some sense that EVERYTHING that exists in creation is a living thing. This for the very simple reason that life is defined in terms of being in a relationship with God...ALL things are in relationship with God because without this relationship they could not exist. I know on one level, JEsus spoke figuratively when he said "If they (the people of Jerusalem) did not praise me the very stones themselves would cry out!" But It would not surprise me to find out if there was more to this than allegory. ALso, I think this kind of thing is hinted at when we are told to preach the gospel to every "creature". Further, the whole creation groans in anticipation of the revelation of the sons of God. I am simply saying that to be in a created relationship with God is to be in a lifegiving relationship. Of course there are higher orders of life...plant...animal (soulish life)...human (God's image)...Angelic...etc...

Long and short, either we can accept modern science that the creation is billions of years old and that millions upon millions of years of living things passed before we ever came on the scene. I just dont see how we can get around this.

Jason

Andrew,

Apart from the fact that the narrative of the Pentateuch treats it as historical as did the fathers of the Church, what is the basis of your assertion that it cannot be anything but allegory?

Some have asserted the same about Jesus, the Resurrection, etc etc. Also, a non-historical mythology, however, cannot somehow serve as a prophecy regarding an historical event. Jesus cannot therefore be the New Adam, since no "Adam" ever existed. As a result, you have a completely truncated Christology and Soteriology.

If these stories in the Old Testament are nothing more than fables or myths, the only way to glean value from them is to treat them apart from any consideration as possessing historical or factual value, in which case salvation history is no different than Greek Mythology.

It's the whole castles on clouds discussion we had 8-10 months ago.

I for one do not share your skepticism here. Nor do I treat Genesis as a scientific textbook...it is true, inspired religious history.

Gordo

Let's say for the sake of argument that the evidence for the standard picture of the history of the earth and evolution of life is accurate and proven to be so. Let's say that it is clear that physical death, disease, suffering, pain, etc. have existed in the world for billions of years and that this is proven to be tue. If so, then what are we to make of the creation stories in Genesis? Isn't Andrew right that it can only be seen as mythic and allegorical? Or, could we say that at some point in the evolutionary process, God enlightened two (or more) of our pre-human ancestors with the light of reason. Perhaps the fall would be the fact that instead of being grateful to their creator they immediately turned to worshipping creation per Romans 1?

What bothers me about attempting to hold on to any kind of literal, historical reading is that the scientific evidence for the standard picture of the age of the earth and the evolution of life seems to be overwhelming.

Joe

Jason,

This is a very good post. I believe that my own thoughts are similar to yours.

Joe

I should say primarily allegory. The reasons are as follows:

- The empirical evidence we have for the most part shows the narrative and sequence of events could not be right.
- The text itself contains contradictions.


I certainly believe there was a first man. Do I believe the events happened as described in Genesis like there was somebody named Adam and somebody named Eve who lived in the Garden of Eden? No.


I guess you have to have faith it isn't just fables, and I suppose the fact that Genesis in several areas parallels and/or incorporates near Eastern mythology doesn't help.

I suppose you just have to trust it's real in some way. You certainly can't prove Christianity is any more real than Greek Mythology. You only have faith that it is.


I don't really see what the difference is there; if Genesis is true, inspired religious history meaning the events in it really happened as described and it is crucial that this is the case for the Christian religion - then I think it all falls apart.

I am assuming that you simply have poorly worded what you believe. Because your statement on the face of it completely undermines the truth of Christianity.

Christianity, as opposed to Greek Mythology, is based in history and historical events: Abraham and the promise, Moses and the Exodus, David and the the Kingdom of Israel, Jesus and the establishment of the Church. These are real historical events that really happened. Greek mythology never claims that the events it recounts happened in real history. If the events of Christianity did NOT happen, then our faith is in vain.

Now the real meaning behind those events - that God has acted in human history to save us - that is something that requires faith to believe.