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

The genesis account, as you relay it is classic. It's the recapitulation of every child's sunday school lesson on the topic. But it is not realistic and doesn't deal with the facts. I don't understand your refusal to look beyond the text of Genesis for answers. You really seem to have a protestant sola scriptura hermeneutic.

I will discuss below the patristic teaching of the immortality of Adam before his transgression, but here I am only interested in the question of whether animals died before the fall. Why should St. Ephraim suggest that Adam would learn about death by seeing the death of animals-if he had already seen the death of animals before his transgression (which he certainly had according to the evolutionary view)? But this is only a suggestion; there are other holy Fathers who speak quite definitely on this subject, as I will show in a moment.

But first I must ask you: if it is true as you say that animals died and the creation was corrupted before the transgression of Adam, then how can it be that God looked at His creation after every one of the Days of Creation and "saw that it was good," and after creating the animals on the Fifth and Sixth Days He "saw that they were good," and at the end of the Six Days, after the creation of man, "God saw all the things that He had made, and behold, they were very good." How could they be "good" if they were already mortal and corruptible, contrary to God's plan for them? The Divine services of the Orthodox Church contain many moving passages of lamentation about the "corrupted creation," as well as expressions of joy that Christ by His Resurrection has "recalled the corrupted creation." How could God see this lamentable condition of the creation and say that it was "very good"? And again, we read in the sacred text of Genesis: "And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the flying creatures of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, even every green plant for food; and it was so." (Gn. 1:29-30) Why, if the animals devoured each other before the fall, as you say, did God give them, even "all the wild beasts and every reptile" (many of which are now strictly carnivorous) only "green plants for food"? Only long after the transgression of Adam did God say to Noah: "And every reptile which is living shall be to you for meat; I have given all things to you as the green herbs." (Gn. 9:3) Do you not sense here the presence of a mystery which so far has escaped you because you insist on interpreting the sacred text of Genesis by means of modern evolutionary philosophy, which will not admit that animals could ever have been of a nature different from that which they now possess?

But the holy Fathers clearly teach that the animals (as well as man) were different before the transgression of Adam! Thus St. John Chrysostom writes:

It is clear that man in the beginning had complete authority over the animals.... But that now we are afraid and terrified of beasts and do not have authority over them, this I do not deny.... In the beginning it was not so, but the beasts feared and trembled and submitted to their master. But when through disobedience he lost boldness, then also his authority was diminished. That all animals were subject to man, hear what the Scripture says: He brought the beasts and all irrational creatures to Adam to see what he would call them. (Gn. 2:19) And he, seeing the beasts near him, did not run away, but like another lord he gives names to the slaves which are subject to him, since he gave names to all animals... This is already sufficient as proof that beasts in the beginning were not frightful for man. But there is another proof not less powerful and even clearer. Which? The conversation of the serpent with the woman. If the beasts had been frightful to man, then seeing the serpent the woman would not have stopped, would not have taken his advice, would not have conversed with him with such fearlessness, but immediately on seeing him would have been terrified and run away. But behold, she converses and is not afraid; there was not yet then any fear. (Homilies on Genesis, IX, 4)

Is it not clear that St. John Chrysostom reads the first part of the text of Genesis "as it is written," as an historical account of the state of man and creation before the transgression of Adam, when both man and animals were different from what they now are? Similarly, St. John Damascene tells us that

at that time the earth brought forth of itself fruits for the use of the animals that were subject to man, and there were neither violent rains upon the earth nor wintry storms. But after the fall, when he was compared to senseless beasts and was become like to them...then the creation subject to him rose up against this ruler appointed by the Creator. (On the Orthodox Faith, Book II, ch. 10)

Perhaps you will object that in the same place St. John Damascene also says, speaking of the creation of animals, "Everything was for the suitable use of man. Of the animals, some were for food, such as deer, sheep, gazelles, and the like." But you must read this passage in context; for at the end of this paragraph we read (just as you have noted that God created man male and female foreknowing Adam's transgression):

God knew all things before they were made and He saw that man in his freedom would fall and be given over to corruption; yet for man's suitable use He made all the things that are in the sky and on the earth and in the water.

Do you not see from the Holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers that God creates creatures so that they will be useful to man even in his corrupted state; but He does not create them already corrupted, and they were not corrupted until Adam sinned.

But let us turn now to a holy Father who speaks quite explicitly about the incorruption of the creation before Adam's disobedience: St. Gregory the Sinaite. He is a holy Father of the highest spiritual life and theological soundness, who attained to the heights of Divine vision. In the Russian Philokalia he writes:

The presently-existing creation was not originally created corruptible; but afterwards it fell under corruption, being made subject to vanity, according to the Scripture, not willingly, but by reason of him, Adam, who hath subjected it in hope of the renewal of Adam who had become subject to corruption. (Rm. 8:20) He who renewed and sanctified Adam has renewed the creation also, but He has not yet delivered it from corruption. (Chapters on Commandments and Dogmas, 11)

Further, the same Father gives us remarkable details about the state of the creation (in particular, Paradise) before Adam's transgression:

Eden is a place in which there was planted by God every kind of fragrant Plant. It is neither completely incorruptible, nor entirely corruptible. Placed between corruption and incorruption, it is always both abundant in fruits and blossoming with flowers, both mature and immature. The mature trees and fruits are converted into fragrant earth which does not give off any odor of corruption, as do the trees of this world. This is from the abundance of the grace of sanctification which is constantly poured forth there. (Ibid., 10) (This passage is expressed in the present tense-because the paradise in which Adam was placed is still in existence, but is not visible to our normal sense organs.)

What will you say of these passages? Will you still be so certain, as "uniformitarian" evolutionary philosophy teaches, that the creation before the fall was just the same as it is now after the fall? The Holy Scripture teaches us that "God made not death" (Wis. 1:13), and St. John Chrysostom teaches that

Just as the creature became corruptible when your body became corruptible, so also when your body will be incorrupt, the creature also will follow after it and become corresponding to it. (Homilies on Romans, XIV, 5)

And St. Macarius the Great says:

Adam was placed as the lord and king of all creatures.... But after his captivity, there was taken captive together with him the creation which served him and submitted to him, because through him death came to reign over every soul. (Homily 11)

The teaching of the holy Fathers, if we accept it "as it is written" and do not try to reinterpret it by means of our human wisdom, is clearly that the state of creatures before the transgression of Adam was quite different from their present state. I am not trying to tell you that I know precisely what this state was; this state between corruption and incorruption is very mysterious to us who live entirely in corruption. Another great Orthodox Father, St. Simeon the New Theologian, teaches that the law of nature we now know is different from the law of nature before Adam's transgression. He writes:

The words and decrees of God become the law of nature. Therefore also the decree of God, uttered by Him as a result of the disobedience of the first Adam-that is, the decree to him of death and corruption-became the law of nature, eternal and unalterable. (Homily 38, Russian edition)

What the "law of nature" was before Adam's transgression, which of us sinful men can define? Certainly natural science, bound up entirely with its observation of the present state of creation, cannot investigate it.

The editor of Rose�s writings provides a helpful and lengthy preface (pp. 15�48), which traces the historical development of Rose�s thoughts on the subject and his plans for such a book that would give a �complete picture� (from the Patristic writings and from science) of the evolution question. It also summarizes changes in evolutionary thinking over the past four decades, the influence of young-earth creationist literature on Rose�s thinking, recent attitudes to evolution among Orthodox believers (especially since Rose died) and also the development of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM). The editor believes that the primary contribution of the book to the world is its unique, penetrating and detailed exposition of the mind of the Eastern Orthodox �Holy Fathers� as it pertains to �the creation, the first-created world, the natures of created things and the original nature of man�(p. 42).

Philip Johnson, leader of the IDM,2 follows the preface with an introduction (pp. 49�62) which summarizes the arguments for biological evolution (natural selection and mutation producing tiny changes which over time lead to dramatic diversity of life forms) and two of the key scientific arguments against biological evolution (abrupt appearance/stasis in the fossil record and irreducible complexity). He also briefly discusses the fact that �scientific� evolution is inherently atheistic, quoting the much used statement by Richard Lewontin about not allowing �a Divine Foot in the door� of scientific study.3 He concludes by posing the question whether science can tell us a true story of origins and is clearly sympathetic to Rose�s conclusion that it cannot.

The editor then lays out Rose�s works (written during 1972�1982) in a reasonably logical, rather than chronological, order. Part I (the longest section) is a patristic commentary on Genesis 1�11. Part II deals with the philosophy of evolution, discussing the �Holy Fathers� view of science and giving a brief critique of the evolution model and an analysis of some of the key Orthodox and Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists. Part III is a lengthy letter written to a Greek Orthodox medical doctor (who was a theistic evolutionist), which lays out the patristic doctrine of Creation. Part IV gives Rose�s answers to 26 questions posed by his students in the course which formed the basis for Part I. Part V is a selection of 26 letters on various relevant topics written over the last 10 years of Rose�s life. Finally, the editor wrote an epilogue which provides his explanation (coinciding with Rose�s views) of how evolution fits in with the developing one-world religious synthesis of the coming Antichrist.

There are also five appendices. One contains Rose�s notes (mostly undated) on a variety of topics related to science, evolution and Christian philosophy. The second gives two outlines of Rose�s proposed studies, which eventually became some of the earlier sections of this book. The third is Rose�s last talk on Creation and evolution, which was a preface to his course on Genesis 4�11 (the last portion of Part I) and given just a few weeks before his sudden death. The fourth is a reprint of an article that was first published by the Bible-Science Association in 1994 and exposes the unreliability of radiometric dating methods. It was written by Curtis Sewell , an Evangelical Protestant scientist and author of God at Ground Zero (1997). Appendix five (written by the editor) is a very up-to-date, thorough and annotated list of recommended books, journals and videos (including some books and videos for children) grouped in twelve topics. It also provides the contact information for AiG, ICR, CRS and other creationist sources as well as IDM sources for these materials.

Part I (pp. 65�280) of the book is, in my opinion, the most important, and covering almost 220 pages it could stand alone as a book. Here Rose collates the writings of the Church Fathers to give us �an Orthodox patristic commentary on Genesis�. This was primarily taken from Rose�s lecture manuscripts for a course on Genesis that he taught in the summers of 1981 and 1982. Before entering into a commentary of Genesis 1�11, Rose explains three reasons why we should study Genesis. First, what a person believes about man�s origin directly relates to his behaviour. Second, Genesis is part of Scripture, which God gave for our salvation. Third, and most importantly, Christianity tells us about what we will be doing in eternal life and only with an understanding of both the beginning and end of all things can we discover what our whole life is about. Later Rose emphasizes that Genesis is absolutely foundational to the Christian faith and our salvation (pp. 419, 589�590) and that evolution is �one of the most dangerous concepts� facing the church (pp. 509�582 stress this many times).

Next, by way of introduction to the commentary, Rose discusses hermeneutics�how to interpret Genesis. He criticizes three wrong approaches. Theistic evolutionists are wrong because they treat the text as an allegory or poem. Then there are those who mistakenly try to disconnect Genesis from science as two separate categories of truth. Thirdly, �Some Protestant fundamentalists,� he says, err in taking Genesis �all (or virtually all) �literal�.� But since he names no examples, it is hard to know whom he has in mind. Indeed, this is a strange criticism since the book goes on to demonstrate that the �Holy Fathers� took Genesis no less literally than Protestant young-earth creationists. Perhaps this is one of the places where Protestant readers need to remember that Rose was not writing to the general public, but to fellow Eastern Orthodox believers, who are taught to believe that the EOC is the only true church and Protestants and Roman Catholics are wayward brethren at best and heretics at worst.4

In contrast to these approaches to Genesis, Rose insists that the �Holy Fathers� (who viewed Genesis as �extremely important�) �are the key to understanding Genesis� (p. 72). His primary sources are early �Fathers� who wrote commentaries on Genesis: John Chrysostom (344�407), Ephraim the Syrian (306�372), Basil the Great (329�379) and Ambrose of Milan (339�397). But he also used many other �Fathers� of that and later centuries who wrote on some aspect of Genesis 1�11. In addition to this hermeneutical �key�, Rose also mentions several other principles: we need to seek truth (not just possible interpretations), recognize that Scripture is divinely inspired, humbly respect the text of Scripture and the Patristic opinions, and be careful not to quote the �Holy Fathers� out of context, which, he says, is a frequent failure of both Protestant and Orthodox readers (pp. 69�84).

Regarding this last point, Rose helpfully explains and documents that the �Holy Fathers� interpreted Genesis (and other Scriptures) both literally and symbolically. That is, they believed the text was literal history, but that it also had a mystical meaning related to the spiritual life of the individual believer or the whole church. It is for this reason that superficial readers of these ancient writings can find passages, which appear to support their non-literal, old-earth views. Among the details of Genesis 1�11 that the �Holy Fathers� (even the most mystical ones) clearly took literally are these: length of days (24-hours), order of Creation events (e. g. earth and plants before the Sun), instantaneous creation of living things with maturity (e. g. Adam being created as an adult not an infant, plants with fruit on the branches, etc.),5 Adam created from the dust and Eve from Adam�s rib, Adam�s naming of the animals, a literal talking serpent in the literal Garden of Eden, a global Flood, the 900-year life-spans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, and the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 (no gaps, strictly chronological). They were not dogmatic about the precise age of the earth since the Greek text of the OT (Septuagint (LXX)�preferred by Orthodox theologians) and Hebrew (Masoretic) text disagreed (which didn�t bother the �Fathers�),6 but they placed it approximately at 5500 BC . However, it is important to note, the �Holy Fathers� were equally explicit that in the literal history of Genesis (as elsewhere in the Bible) the anthropomorphic language describing God was not literal (pp. 87, 198, 247, 277, 404).

It was interesting to see that the �Holy Fathers� expounded many other important points in the modern young-earth creationist position. For example, they understood that Cain married one of his close relatives (p. 232), that all people groups are descended from one man (p. 480), and that each original �kind� was fixed to reproduce according to its distinct nature and not to change into a different kind (pp. 123, 133�137, 386�388).

But one of the most important points repeatedly made by the �Fathers� and by Rose was that the pre-Fall world was categorically different from the world that we live in now. The Fall and Curse had a profound effect on the whole Creation (pp. 202, 206�207, 328, 409, 413, 445, 585, 607). Neither animals nor man were carnivores before the Fall, but probably only became so after the Flood (pp. 155, 411�412). Adam�s mind was far superior to any man�s since (pp. 177, 483). The laws of nature, even the nature of matter itself, changed drastically at the Fall (pp. 328, 415). Man�s significant physical change was seen not only in his becoming mortal, but also even in the �voiding of fecal matter� which Rose claims did not happen pre-Fall (pp. 448�449).7 Only in the new heavens and new earth (which will be like the pre-Fall Creation), argued these ancient writers, will the curse on all of Creation be removed (p. 431).
Strengths of the book

This is a great addition to the literature defending the literal truth of Genesis 1�11 (i. e. treating it as straightforward, plain, historical narrative) from the perspective of church history. This is especially so, because Rose quotes so extensively from ancient writers that most people do not have access to. Johnson is right in saying (pp. 50�51) that �Fr Seraphim has thoroughly demolished one of the favorite canards of accommodationists [with evolution] not only in Orthodoxy, but also in Roman Catholic and Protestant circles�, where we encounter �such perverse misinterpretations� of pre-nineteenth century church leaders. With many statements throughout the book, Rose gives us a clear picture of the extent to which 20th century EO believers have compromised with evolution. There is much confusion in most of their minds about it (p. 382) and most appear to be theistic evolutionists, a fact which is confirmed by my own experience as a missionary in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union for 18 years. This is because (1) �they do not have a critical approach to the scientific �findings� (although, in full harmony with the modern spirit, they do have a critical approach to Scripture)� and (2) �they do not understand the philosophical �spirit of the age�� (pp. 291�292). Obviously, the same can be said of most Roman Catholics and Protestants.

The book is well-illustrated with icons (religious pictures) of all the �Holy Fathers� (under which are dates of each life) whom Rose quotes, as well as many icons related to events in Genesis 1�11. This is very helpful for the non-Orthodox reader not only in getting a handle on the history of interpretation but also in seeing a central aspect of Eastern Orthodox religious life (which is why they are in the book).

Throughout the work, both Rose and his editor show a very thorough knowledge of young-earth creationist books (both adult and kids), journals, videos and organizations (ICR, AiG, CRS, etc.). All are referred to with great appreciation because they informed so much of his and the editor�s understanding of the scientific side of the debate. Clearly, the two most influential books in Rose�s thinking were Henry Morris�s Scientific Creationism (1974) and Morris and Whitcomb�s The Genesis Flood (1961). The table of contents is detailed, making it easy to find your way around the book. Besides footnotes by Rose and the editor and endnotes by Rose, there is a thorough bibliography, an extensive subject and name index (which helpfully puts the page number of each person�s icon in bold) and a Scripture index. And the recommended reading list looks like the AiG or ICR catalogue. So this is a good reference book for every serious creationist library.

Would you say that God gives everyone the gift of faith and some choose to reject it? Or would you say that God gives the gift of faith to those who are disposed to receive it? You are right that what you wrote doesn't entail an Augustinian view of election. It just seemed to imply it to me. Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, the view that all are elect in Christ was articulated and argued by Schleiermacher and Barth. They argued it to the point where they advocated universalism. Perhaps, this is because they both stand in the Reformed tradition. But, Barth was fond of the notion that God consigned all to disobedience so that He could have mercy on all. How Romans 9 squares with this I'm not sure.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that St. John Chrysostom and other eastern fathers do not read Romans 5:19 the same way. They don't think that we were actually made sinners by Adam, but just that we were weakened through the death that we inherited for Adam so that we do in fact become sinners when we reach the age of being able to commit sin. They would still regard infants as, technically, not being sinners. On the face of it, it seems though that this doesn't fit St. Paul's argument very well. I plan on doing a more thorough study of Romans though since this is really puzzling me.

If this is so, then doesn't it also mean that it is really not possible to do science? If the fallen world is substantially different from when God created it (because of the fall) then doesn't this make true science an impossibility? The principle of the uniformity of nature seems to be an indispensible requirement for doing science.

Joe

How essential is it to the Christian faith that there be a literal Adam/Eve created in a prefallen paradise and that all of the suffering and evil we see in the world today is because of the fall?

I don't subscribe to evolution and I don't understand why belief in an "old earth" makes evolution necessary. Perhaps no one is saying this, but it does seem to be assumed in the posts here.

Jason

How essential is it to the Christian faith that there be a literal Adam/Eve created in a prefallen paradise and that all of the suffering and evil we see in the world today is because of the fall?

In other words, I think the Adam and Eve story is just that -- a story-- and not history.

But, it is a story that teaches a Divine Truth (and hence it's in the Bible). Namely: God made man good, but Man made himself sinful by failing to obey God.

And, because Man is incapable of freeing Himself from the dominion of sin and the devil, God had to step in Personally --in the Person of Jesus Christ-- and free us by His life, death and resurrection.