Skip to content
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

Divine Vision

What is the source of our true knowledge of the first-created world, and how is it different from science? How can St. Gregory the Sinaite know what happens to the ripe fruits of Paradise, and why can natural science not discover such a thing? Since you are a lover of the Holy Fathers, I believe that you already know the answer to this question. Still, I will set forth the answer, based not on my own reasoning but on the unquestionable authority of a Holy Father of the highest spiritual life, St. Isaac the Syrian, who spoke of the soul’s ascent to God based on his own experience of it. In describing how the soul is enraptured at the thought of the future age of incorruption, St. Isaac writes:

And from this one is already exalted in his mind to that which preceded the composition of the world, when there was no creature, nor heaven, nor earth, nor angels, nothing of that which was brought into being, and to how God, solely by His good will, suddenly brought everything from non-being into being, and everything stood before Him in perfection.1

Do you see that St. Gregory the Sinaite and other Holy Fathers of the highest spiritual life behold the first-created world in the state of Divine vision, which is beyond all natural knowledge? St Gregory the Sinaite himself states that the “eight primary visions” of the state of perfect prayer are: (1) God, (2) the angelic powers, (3) “the composition of visible things,” (4) the condescension of the Word (the Incarnation), (5) the universal resurrection, (6) the Second Coming of Christ, (7) eternal torments, (8) the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.2 Why should the “composition of visible things” be included together with the other objects of Divine vision which are all within the sphere of theological knowledge alone, and not scientific knowledge? Is it not because there is an aspect and state of creatures beyond the sphere of scientific knowledge, which can only be seen, as St Isaac himself saw God’s creation, in vision by God’s grace? The objects of these visions, St. Gregory teaches, “are clearly beheld and known by those who have attained by grace complete purity of mind.”3

In another place St. Isaac the Syrian clearly describes the difference between natural knowledge and faith, which leads to vision.

Knowledge is a rule of nature, and this rule preserves it in all its steps. But faith performs its journey above nature. Knowledge does not attempt to permit anything to come to it which is subversive of nature, but avoids this; but faith permits this and says: “Thou shalt tread upon the asp and basilisk, and thou shalt trample on the lion and the dragon” (Ps. 90:13)… Many by faith have entered flames, bridled the burning power of fire and passed unharmed through its midst, and walked on the surface of the sea as on dry land. But all this is above nature, contrary to the capabilities of knowledge, and it is shown that the latter is vain in all its capacities and laws. Do you see how knowledge preserves the bounds of nature? Do you see how faith goes above nature and there traces the steps of its path? The capabilities of knowledge for 5,000 years, or a little more or less than this, governed the world, and man in no way could raise his head from the earth and acknowledge his Creator, until our faith shone forth and delivered us from the darkness of earthly doing and vain submission to the empty soaring of the mind. And even now, when we have found an imperturbable sea and an inexhaustible treasure, again we desire to turn away toward tiny springs. There is no knowledge that would not be poor, no matter how much it might be enriched. But the treasures of faith can be contained neither by the heaven nor by the earth.4

Do you now see what is at stake in the argument between the Patristic understanding of Genesis and the doctrine of evolution? The doctrine of evolution attempts to understand the mysteries of God’s creation by means of natural knowledge and worldly philosophy, not even allowing the possibility that there is something in these mysteries which places them beyond its capabilities of knowing; while the book of Genesis is an account of God’s creation as seen in Divine vision by the God-seer Moses, and this vision is confirmed also by the experience of later Holy Fathers. Now, even though revealed knowledge is higher than natural knowledge, still we know that there can be no conflict between true revelation and true natural knowledge. But there can be conflict between revelation and human philosophy, which is often in error. There is thus no conflict between the knowledge of creation contained in Genesis, as interpreted for us by the Holy Fathers, and the true knowledge of creatures, which modern science has acquired by observation; but there most certainly is an irreconcilable conflict between the knowledge contained in Genesis and the vain philosophical speculations of modern scientists, unenlightened by faith, about the state of the world in the Six Days of Creation. Where there is a genuine conflict between Genesis and modern philosophy, if we wish to know the truth we must accept the teaching of the Holy Fathers and reject the false opinions of scientific philosophers. The world has now become so infected by vain modern philosophy posing as science that very few, even among Orthodox Christians, are willing or able to examine this question dispassionately and discover what the Holy fathers really taught, and then accept the Patristic teaching even if it seems utter foolishness to the vain wisdom of this world.

Concerning the true Patristic view of the first-created world, already I think I have indicated enough to you of the Patristic views which at first sight seem “surprising” to an Orthodox Christian whose understanding of Genesis has been obscured by modern scientific philosophy. Most “surprising” of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Holy Fathers understood the text of Genesis “as it is written,” and do not allow us to interpret it “freely” or allegorically. Many Orthodox Christians with a “modern education” have become accustomed to associating such an interpretation with Protestant fundamentalism, and they are afraid of being considered “naive” by sophisticated scientific philosophers; but it is clear how much more profound is the true Patristic interpretation than that of the fundamentalists, on the one hand, who have never even heard of Divine vision and whose interpretation sometimes coincides with that of the Holy Fathers only by accident, as it were; and on the other hand, how much more profound is the Patristic interpretation than that of those who uncritically accept the speculations of modern philosophy as if they were true knowledge.

It may help the “modern” Orthodox Christian to understand how the incorruption of the first-created world is beyond the competence of science to investigate, if he would examine the fact of incorruption as it has been manifested by God’s action even in our present corrupted world. We can find no higher manifestation of this incorruption than in the Most Holy Mother of God, of Whom we sing: “Thee Who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, true Mother of God, we magnify.” The Theotokia of our Orthodox Divine services are full of this doctrine. St. John Damascene points out that in two respects this “incorruption” is beyond the laws of nature. “So far as He had no father, (Christ’s) birth was above the nature of generation,” and “in that His birth was painless, it was above the laws of generation.”5 What does the Orthodox Christian say when a modern unbeliever, under the influence of modern naturalistic philosophy, insists that such “incorruption” is “impossible,” and demands that Christians believe only what can be proved or observed by science? Does he not hold to his faith, which is revealed knowledge, in spite of “science” and its philosophy? Does he not indeed tell this pseudoscientist that he cannot possibly now or understand this fact of incorruption, inasmuch as the works of God are above nature? Then why should we hesitate to believe the truth about creation before Adam’s fall, if we become convinced that the Holy Fathers indeed teach us that it is something quite beyond the competence of science to investigate or know? One who accepts the evolutionary philosophy of the creation before Adam’s transgression, and thus rejects the Patristic teaching, only prepares the way in his own soul, and in the souls of others, to accept an evolutionary or other pseudoscientific view of many other Orthodox doctrines also. We hear today many Orthodox priests who tell us, “Our faith in Christ does not depend on how we interpret Genesis. You can believe as you wish.” But how can it be that our negligence in understanding one part of God’s revelation (which, by the way, is indeed closely bound up with Christ, the Second Adam, Who became incarnate in order to restore us to our original state) will not lead to negligence in understanding the whole doctrine of the Orthodox Church? It is not for nothing that St. John Chrysostom closely binds together the correct dogmas which are essential for our SALVATION. Speaking of those who interpret the book of Genesis allegorically, he says:

Let us not pay heed to these people, let up stop up our hearing against them, and let up believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is said in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas, and at the same time to lead also a right life, so that our life would both testify of the dogmas, and the dogmas would give firmness to our life… If we live well but will be negligent over right dogmas, we can acquire nothing for our salvation. If we wish to be delivered from Gehenna and receive the Kingdom, we must be adorned both with the one and with the other—both with rightness of dogmas, and strictness of life.6

There is one other question regarding the state of the first-created world about which you may wonder; what about the “millions of years” of the world’s existence which science “knows to be a fact”? This letter is already too long and I cannot discuss this question here. But if you wish, in another letter I can discuss this question also, including the “radiocarbon” and other “absolute” dating systems, giving you the views of reputable scientists about them and showing you how these “millions of years” also are not at all a fact but only more “philosophy.” This very idea was never even thought of until men, under the influence of naturalistic philosophy, began already to believe in evolution and saw that if evolution is true, then the world must be millions of years old (since evolution has never been observed, it is conceivable only under the supposition of countless millions of years which can bring about those processes which are too “minute” for contemporary scientists to see). If you will examine this question objectively and dispassionately, separating genuine evidence from suppositions and philosophy you will see, I believe, that there is no genuine factual evidence which requires us to believe that the earth is more than 7,500 years old. What one believes about this is entirely dependent on his philosophy of the creation.

To sum up the Patristic teaching of the first-created world I can do no better than to copy out the divine words of a Holy Father who so shone forth in mental prayer that he was only the third Father to be called by the entire Orthodox Church “Theologian”: I mean St. Symeon the New Theologian. In his 45th Homily (Russian edition), speaking from Patristic tradition and probably also from his own experience, he says:

God, in the beginning, before He planted Paradise and gave it over to the first-created ones, in five days established the earth and what is in it, and the heaven and what is in it, and on the Sixth Day He created Adam and placed him as lord and king of the whole visible creation. Paradise then did not yet exist. But this world was from God as a kind of Paradise, although it was material and sensual. God gave it over into the authority of Adam and all his descendants… “And God planted Paradise in Eden in the East. And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food” (Gen. 2:8-9), with various fruits which never spoiled and never ceased, but were always fresh and sweet and afforded a great satisfaction, and pleasantness for the first-created ones. For it was necessary that an incorruptible delight be furnished for those bodies of the first-created ones, which were incorrupt… Adam was created with a body that was incorrupt, even though material and not yet spiritual, and he was placed by the Creator God as an immortal king over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise, but also over the whole creation which was under the heavens…

(After Adam’s transgression) God did not curse Paradise .. but He cursed only the whole rest of the earth, which was also incorrupt and produced everything by itself… He who had become corrupt and mortal by reason of transgression of the commandment, in all justice had to live also on a corruptible earth and eat corruptible food… Then also all creatures when they saw that Adam was banished from Paradise, no longer wished to submit to him the transgressor… But God restrained all these creatures by His power, and in His compassion and goodness He did not allow them immediately to rush against man, and He commanded that the creation should remain in submission to him and, having become corruptible, should serve corruptible man for whom it was created, with the intention that when man should again be renewed and become spiritual, incorrupt, and immortal, and the whole creation, which had been subjected by God to man in bondage to him, should be delivered from this bondage, it would be renewed together with him and become incorrupt and as it were spiritual…

It is not fitting for the bodies of men to be clothed in the glory of resurrection and become incorrupt before the renewal of all creatures. But as in the beginning, first the whole creation was created incorrupt, and then from it was taken and created man, so also it is fitting that first the whole creation should become incorrupt, and then the bodies of men should be renewed and become incorrupt, that again the whole man might be incorrupt and spiritual and that he might dwell in an incorrupt, eternal and spiritual dwelling… Do you see that this whole creation in the beginning was incorrupt and created by God in the order of Paradise? But afterwards it was subjected by God to corruption and submitted to the vanity of men.

You should know likewise what is to be the brightly shining state of the creation in the future age. For when it will be renewed, it will not be again the same as it was when it was created in the beginning. But it will be such as, according to the word of the divine Paul, out body will be… The whole creation, by God’s command, after the general resurrection is to be not such as it was created—material and sensual—but it will be re-created and will become a certain immaterial and spiritual dwelling, far above every organ of sense.7

Can there be any clearer teaching of the state of the first-created world before the transgression of Adam?

Footnotes

  1. St. Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies 21, Tvoreniya, p. 108 [trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Homily 37, p. 180] [Homily 85 in the printed Greek text edited by Nikephoros Theotokis (1770)]. ↩

  2. St. Gregory the Sinaite, On Commandments and Doctrines 130, Dobrotolyubiye 5, 2nd ed. (1900), p. 213 [Philokalia: Ton ieron niptikon (The Philokalia of the neptic fathers). Athens: Astir Publishing Company, 1957-1963. 5 vols. Reprint, Athens: Publishing House “Sotir,” 1976. Based on the earlier editions published in Venice, 1782, and Athens, 1893, 4, p. 248]; St. Theophan the Recluse, Dobrotolyubiye v Russkom perevode, do polnennoe (The Philokalia in Russian translation, supplemented), 5 vols. (Moscow: Athonite Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon, 1877-1889; 2nd ed., 1883-1900; 3rd ed., 1913). ↩

  3. Ibid. ↩

  4. St. Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies 25, Tvoreniya, pp. 125-27 [trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Homily 52, p. 255] [Homily 62 in the printed Greek text edited by Nikephoros Theotokis (1770)]. ↩

  5. St. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 4.14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, P. Schaff et al., eds. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952-1956; Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994, 2 9, p. 85b. ↩

  6. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 13.4, Tvoreniya 4, p. 107 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 177-78 (Homily 13.16)]. ↩

  7. St. Symeon the New Theologian, Homily 45.1-5, in Slova prepodobnago Simeona novago bogoslova 1, pp. 367-83 [Fr. Seraphim Rose, trans. St. Symeon the New Theologian: The First-Created Man, pp. 87-104 (St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994). Originally published in 1979 under the title The Sin of Adam and Our Redemption]. ↩