Sexual intercourse mentioned before the Fall?

[ArmyMatt]

But even Adam & Eve were male and female.

so what? that does not mean that they had sex the way we do, Christ Himself said that the glorified state is more angelic and spiritual.

 

[OGM]

so what? that does not mean that they had sex the way we do, Christ Himself said that the glorified state is more angelic and spiritual.

That does not mean they didn't reproduce the way we did either. It simple is not referenced.

 

[MilesVitae]

the only true Man was conceived virginally. case closed.

Hmmm. Well, Christ was not the only true man - even if he was the perfect man. But, does the virginal nature of Christ's conception necessarily reflect on the nature (or presence) of procreation prior to the Fall? After all, we are dealing with God made man. I've always understood the role of the virgin birth as indicating the divinity and divine origin of Christ.

yes we do, the unfallen Adam and Eve were created virginally, the Son was both born eternally from the Father virginally and came forth from Mary virginally. it's actually the only unfallen way of procreating in Scripture

I don't think the creation of Adam and Eve nor the eternal generation of the Son has much bearing upon procreation by man. In the first case, there could be no question of sexual intercourse, since we are not talking about procreation but creation of the world by God (and besides, there would have no been no men to engage in intercourse or not before the first men, so it's kind of a moot point then). Calling Adam and Eve's creation virginal makes as much sense to me as calling the cooking of my breakfast virginal. As for the Son - well, we're talking about the generation of a purely spiritual being. Seems like apples and oranges to me, if I may reference my breakfast again.

That being said, my only knowledge of this theory is a western scholastic's rejection of it (Thomas Aquinas). Are there any particular Fathers one should read to understand this theory? Did any of the Fathers hold a different view?

 

[MilesVitae]

There would be no reason to procreate in the conventional sense pre fall because there would be no reason to pass on our hereditary DNA. There simply cannot be procreation without death, not only on theological grounds but on comnon sense. Without death without the foodchain the ever multiplying species simply cannot sustain thenselves on a finite earth. Scripture is clear that Adam and Eve were innocent, upon eating of the fruit their eyes were opened and they noticed there nakedness. Once exiled from Eden, Adam went and knew his wife. Adam immediately began to fulfill the command to go out and multiply and subdue the earth. Obviously the command wouldn't make sense inside the garden where there is nothing to subdue nor anywhere to go out into. And that's why Adam knew his wife after the fall and not before it. Death puts an end to sin but you live on through your seed as a new sinless babe. This cycle of death and (Re)birth foreshadows the resurrection to come. As man dies corrupt be is raised anew.

This line of thought certainly depends upon a very literal understanding of the Genesis creation story, yes?

 

[jckstraw72]

This line of thought certainly depends upon a very literal understanding of the Genesis creation story, yes?

the Fathers always upheld the literal understanding of Genesis.

 

[truthseeker32]

the Fathers always upheld the literal understanding of Genesis.

If by literal you mean that they saw Genesis as a chronological and verbatim record of creation then your statement is false. Not all fathers saw Genesis as literal in this sense.

 

[jckstraw72]

If by literal you mean that they saw Genesis as a chronological and verbatim record of creation then your statement is false. Not all fathers saw Genesis as literal in this sense.

the Fathers upheld many levels of interpretation for Genesis. Symbolic meanings are not mutually exclusive with the literal meaning.

 

[truthseeker32]

the Fathers upheld many levels of interpretation for Genesis. Symbolic meanings are not mutually exclusive with the literal meaning.

Very true. We have been over this before so I don't want to
hash it out again, but it is important to define our terms and acknowledge that one doesn't have to be a biblical literalist or a young-earther to be in good standing. Some early Fathers like St. Basil had a more literal understanding of the six days of creation whereas some like St. Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine had a more allegorical understanding.

 

[jckstraw72]

Very true. We have been over this before so I don't want to
hash it out again, but it is important to define our terms and acknowledge that one doesn't have to be a biblical literalist or a young-earther to be in good standing. Some early Fathers like St. Basil had a more literal understanding of the six days of creation whereas some like St. Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine had a more allegorical understanding.

St. Gregory even said that God created the heaven and earth on a Sunday, since the 7th day was a Saturday on which He rested, and St. Augustine said that he who can interpret Genesis wholly literally is the most admirable understander of the text.

but as for the reproducing another way argument, i know its in St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus and St. John of Damascus, but every other Father who comments on creation and the Fall that I have ever seen writes that Adam and Eve were virginal before the Fall.

 

[GregConstantine]

To take a literalist POV or a very allegorical POV is IMO to assume a rather materistic world view rather than the proper Orthodox world view which sees everything existing and being sustained by the very energia of God. For example, the literalist and the allegorical both set up the false dichotomy of the spiritual and physical and therefore struggle with what they sense from their 5 physical senses to reconcile the false dichotomy they've set up for themselves. Atheists make this mistake, but so too do the fundamentalist who sees the Scriptures as a scientific and historical book, rather then seeing it as a spiritual book that may contain scientific or historical facts.

The whole question of how reproduction took place before the Fall or how would it look had the fall not happened is really conjucture. We really don't know with 100% certainty. Maybe as a matter of academic curiosity, we might indulge ourselves with such a question. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter that much. What matter is what we do know for 100% certainty. That is, every human person born since the Fall is created in the image and likeness of God as a unique individual to be loved by God and to return that love to God, to his/her fellow human beings, and to be loving stewards of creation, growing and increasing more and more into the image and likeness of God. We also know with 100% certainty that God blesses the holy mystery of marriage and has given us the physical sexual act to procreate children and to take place only within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman.

Beyond that, anything else is speculation and really I don't think it's very helpful at least for me spiritually to dwell on such minituae details and conjecturing on things we may not know, at least not in this life.

And I really think that if we want to reach out to the world around us and communicate what the Church teaches and believes about marriage and sexuality, we are going to 1st have to talk to people about what does it mean to be a human being? What is Personhood? Who is God? What is my calling or vocation as a human being created in the image and likeness of God?

Once a few years ago, our OCF was invited to sit on a panel discussion hosted by the campus LGBT group. I had to sit on the panel since we couldn't find anyone more qualified in the short amount of time we had to prepare for this event. Anyways, instead of reiterating the usual rhetoric, I attempted to get their focus on discussing the questions I mentioned above. Suffice to say, they did not know what to make of what I told them (Theosis, being created in the image and likeness of God, our true identity as persons, etc).

 

[GregConstantine]

another thing I forgot to mention, we also should try to avoid making the mistake of superimposing our 21st century world view and mindset onto what the Fathers wrote about anything really, but especially when it comes to scientific matters. This is in no way implying the Fathers were wrong, but that they were operating in a different milieu then the one we operate in, which is very materalistic.

 

[jckstraw72]

Elder Aimilianos, The Church at Prayer: The Mystical Liturgy of the Heart, p. 124
When did marriage begin? When man sinned. Before that, there was no marriage, not in the present-day sense. It was only after the Fall, after Adam and Eve had been expelled from paradise, that Adam “knew” Eve (Gen 4.1) and thus marriage began. Why then? So that they might remember their fall and expulsion from paradise, and seek to return there. Marriage is thus a return to the spiritual paradise, the Church of Christ. “I am married” means, then, that I am a king, a true and faithful member of the Church.

St. Athanasius, Commentary on the Psalms (Ps. 50:5)
The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the forefather.

[FONT=&quot]St. Diadochos of Photiki, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Philokalia Vol. 1, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]p. 269[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Eve is the first to teach us that sight, taste and the other senses, when used without moderation, distract the heart from its remembrance of God. So long as she did not look with longing at the forbidden tree, she was able to keep God’s commandment carefully in mind; she was still covered by the wings of divine love and thus was ignorant of her own nakedness. But after she had looked at the tree with longing, touched it with ardent desire and then tasted its fruit with active sensuality, she at once felt drawn to physical intercourse and, being naked, she gave way to her passion. All her desire was now to enjoy what was immediately present to her senses, and through the pleasant appearance of the fruit she involved Adam in her fall. Thereafter it became hard for man’s intellect to remember God or His commandments[/FONT]

George of Zadonsk, Letters…, Saint Petersburg, "Letter #115," p. 110 (qtd. at New Age Philosophy, Orthodox Thought, and Marriage)
May holy truth enlighten you to the correct understanding of [Scriptural] words. I am pleased to cite an example from the 18th Discourse of St. John Chrysostom on the 1st book [Genesis] on your so unexpected [for me] statement, in which, incidentally, St. John expresses the following words: And Adam knew his wife Eve. Mind you, when did this take place? After disobedience, after the exile from Paradise; then intercourse began; before disobedience, they lived like Angels, and nowhere is there any mention of intercourse. Because previously we were not subject to physical needs, therefore from the beginning virginity was preeminent. But when, due to their weakness, disobedience occurred, sin made inroads and virginity stepped aside (retreated), as from those unworthy of so great a virtue. Then the practice of carnal union appeared. Please take heed to the great merit of virginity, what an elevated and great deed it is, which is exalted above human nature and needs." You can read further in the book of discourses the correct explanation of the words cited, and see that it is not by carnal union or intercourse that the human race multiplies, but by the unfathomable power of God's blessing. Is it clear to you now that there was no commandment about carnal union but that it took place after the transgression and disobedience which might not have occurred [i.e., could have been avoided]?
With love I warn you about important matters: do not engage in conversations with those incapable of expounding properly. It is better to avoid curiosity and not listen to those from whose tongues words fall like peas from a sack."

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 17
1. It is better for us however, perhaps, rather to inquire, before investigating this point, the solution of the question put forward by our adversaries; for they say that before the sin there is no account of birth, or of travail, or of the desire that tends to procreation, but when they were banished from Paradise after their sin, and the woman was condemned by the sentence of travail, Adam thus entered with his consort upon the intercourse of married life, and then took place the beginning of procreation. If, then, marriage did not exist in Paradise, nor travail, nor birth, they say that it follows as a necessary conclusion that human souls would not have existed in plurality had not the grace of immortality fallen away to mortality, and marriage preserved our race by means of descendants, introducing the offspring of the departing to take their place, so that in a certain way the sin that entered into the world was profitable for the life of man: for the human race would have remained in the pair of the first-formed, had not the fear of death impelled their nature to provide succession.

2. Now here again the true answer, whatever it may be, can be clear to those only who, like Paul, have been instructed in the mysteries of Paradise; but our answer is as follows. When the Sadducees once argued against the doctrine of the resurrection, and brought forward, to establish their own opinion, that woman of many marriages, who had been wife to seven brethren, and thereupon inquired whose wife she will be after the resurrection, our Lord answered their argument so as not only to instruct the Sadducees, but also to reveal to all that come after them the mystery of the resurrection-life: "for in the resurrection," He says, "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.

3. But if any one finds a difficulty in an inquiry as to the manner of the generation of souls, had man not needed the assistance of marriage, we shall ask him in turn, what is the mode of the angelic existence, how they exist in countless myriads, being one essence, and at the same time numerically many; for we shall be giving a fit answer to one who raises the question how man would have been without marriage, if we say, "as the angels are without marriage;" for the fact that man was in a like condition with them before the transgression is shown by the restoration to that state.

[FONT=&quot]St. Gregory Palamas[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Homily 43 "On the Gospel Reading for the Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman,” in Homilies p. 342[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy theologians calls human procreation, "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(The "holy theologian" he quotes here is St. Gregory the Theologian, in his oration on Holy Baptism)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]St. Gregory the Theologian, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Oration [/FONT][FONT=&quot]40.2, On Holy Baptism[/FONT]
The Word recognizes three Births for us; namely, the natural birth, that of Baptism, and that of the Resurrection. Of these the first is by night, and is servile, and involves passion; but the second is by day, and is destructive of passion, cutting off all the veil that is derived from birth, and leading on to the higher life; and the third is more terrible and shorter, bringing together in a moment all mankind, to stand before its Creator, and to give an account of its service and conversation here; whether it has followed the flesh, or whether it has mounted up with the spirit, and worshipped the grace of its new creation.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.4
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

St. Jerome, Against Jovinian 1.16
And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 15.14
Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . .

18.12
“Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not subject to the needs of the body?

On Virginity 14.3,5
[Adam and Eve] lived in Paradise as in heaven and they enjoyed God’s company. Desire for sexual intercourse, conception, labor, childbirth and every form of corruption had been banished from their souls . . . At that time there were no cities, crafts, or houses . . . Nevertheless, nothing either thwarted or hindered that happy life, which was far better than this.

On Virginity 14, PG 48, 543-44, Quoted in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
After he was created, he lived in Paradise, and there was no reason for marriage. A helper needed to be made for him, and one was made, and even then marriage was not deemed necessary. It had not yet happened. But, rather, they continued without it, living in Paradise as if in heaven and delighting in their converse with God … As long as they were unconquered by the devil and respected their own Master, virginity also continued, adorning them more than the diadem and golden clothing adorn the emperors. But when, becoming captives, they took off this garment and laid aside the heavenly adornment and sustained the dissolution deriving from death, the curse, pain, and toilsome existence, then together with these, enters marriage, this mortal and slavish garment. Do you see whence marriage had its beginning, whence it was deemed necessary? From the disobedience, from the curse, from death. For where there is death there also is marriage. Whereas, when the first does not exist, then neither does the second follow.

On Virginity 15.2
Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 15
We have heard from that raving mistress gluttony, who has just spoken, that her offspring is war against bodily chastity. And this is not surprising, since our ancient forefather Adam teaches us this too. For if he had not been overcome by his stomach, he would not have known what a wife was. That is why those who keep the first commandment do not fall into the second transgression. And they continue to be children of Adam without knowing what Adam was. But they are made a little lower than the angels (in being subject to death). And this is to prevent evil from becoming immortal, as he who is called the Theologian [St. Gregory] says.

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 4.24
But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children

St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium 21
He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and sin. Sin henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in consequence of his sin.

Ad Thalassium 61
When God created human nature, He did not create sensible pleasure and pain along with it; rather, He furnished it with a certain spiritual capacity for pleasure, a pleasure whereby human beings would be able to enjoy God ineffably.

On Various Perplexing Topics PG 91, 1276B, Quoted in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
It was necessary, yes truly necessary, that in restoring nature though himself, nature’s Creator (that is, Jesus) first abolished those laws of nature by which, through disobedience, sin had condemned human beings to propagation from one another – a trait identical to that of the irrational animals – and thus, restore the laws of the first and truly divine creation; so that what man, being infirm, destroyed out of carelessness, God, being powerful, might restore in His loving care for mankind.

On Various Perplexing Topics, PG 91, 1309A, in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
The distinguishing qualities of male and female were not at all contingent on the divine intention concerning man’s generation. Foreknown to God was yet another way of increasing mankind into a multitude.

On Various Perplexing Topics, PG 91, 1348A, in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
The first man was fittingly condemned to a bodily generation that is without choice, material and subject to earth, God thus rightly judging him who had freely chosen what is worse over what is better … to bear the dishonorable affinity with the irrational beasts, instead of the divine, unutterable honor of being with God.

4th Century of Various Texts 44, Philokalia 2, pp. 246-247, in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
When our forefather, Adam, broke the divine commandment, in place of the original form of generation, he conceived and introduced into human nature, at the prompting of the serpent, another form, originating in pleasure, and terminating through suffering in death … And because he introduced this ill-gotten pleasure-provoked form of generation, he deservedly brought on himself, and on all men born in the flesh from him, the doom of death through suffering.

Questions and Answers 3, PG 788B, in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
All those born of Adam are ‘conceived in iniquities,’ thus coming under the forefather’s sentence.

Questions and Answers 3, PG 788B, in “The Mystery of Marriage in a Dogmatic Light” by Bishop ARTEMY (Rantosavlievich) in Divine Ascent: A Journal of Orthodox Faith vol. 1, nos. 3/4
When asked the meaning of the Psalm Verse “I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin did my mother bear me (Psalm 50:5), St. Maximos answers: “God’s original purpose was not that we be born from corruption through marriage. But Adam sinned, and the transgression of the commandment introduced marriage.”

Elder Paisios, Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos, by Hieromonk Isaac, p. 144-145
Once, on Sinai, the Elder beheld a supranatural event in the Holy Spirit: the holy and temperate martial relations of the Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna, by which the Holy Theotokos was conceived and born. The Elder related to us the revelation he received: “Saints Joachim and Anna were completely spiritual people, without any carnal-mindedness at all. They were the most passionless couple that’s ever lived. First, they prayed to God separately, with tears, that He would give them a child, and then they came together, out of obedience to God and not out of any carnal desire. And, since the conception happened without self-indulgent pleasure, the Panagia was all-pure and chaste. Of course, she wasn’t free from ancestral sin, like the papists falsely believe, because she was conceived in the usual or natural way [that is, not without seed, like Christ]; bust still [it was] totally without passion, as God wanted people to be born.”

Once the Elder was stressing these truths during a discussion. Seeing that the other person was hesitant and reluctant to accept his words, he stood up and in a decisive tone declared, “I experienced what took place!” He wanted to make clear that he was expressing, not the content of his own reverent thoughts, but a divine revelation.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 13, in On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, Vol. 2: On Virtue and Christian Life, p. 167.
There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin.

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 62
To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic nature.

Against Marcion 4.38
You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. "But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection." If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer, then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood. You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection.

 

[jckstraw72]

On mankind's division into male and female:

[FONT=&quot]St. Gregory of Nyssa, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On the Making of Man [/FONT][FONT=&quot]16.7-9, 17.4 NPNF 2 5, pp. 405, 407[/FONT]
We must, then, examine the words carefully: for we find, if we do so, that that which was made “in the image” is one thing, and that which is now manifested in wretchedness is another. “God created man,” it says; “in the image of God created He him.” There is an end of the creation of that which was made “in the image”: then it makes a resumption of the account of creation, and says, “male and female created He them.” I presume that every one knows that this is a departure from the Prototype: for “in Christ Jesus,” as the apostle says, “there is neither male nor female.” Yet the phrase declares that man is thus divided.
8. Thus the creation of our nature is in a sense twofold: one made like to God, one divided according to this distinction: for something like this the passage darkly conveys by its arrangement, where it first says, “God created man, in the image of God created He him,” and then, adding to what has been said, “male and female created He them,”—a thing which is alien from our conceptions of God.
9. I think that by these words Holy Scripture conveys to us a great and lofty doctrine; and the doctrine is this. While two natures—the Divine and incorporeal nature, and the irrational life of brutes—are separated from each other as extremes, human nature is the mean between them: for in the compound nature of man we may behold a part of each of the natures I have mentioned,—of the Divine, the rational and intelligent element, which does not admit the distinction of male and female; of the irrational, our bodily form and structure, divided into male and female: for each of these elements is certainly to be found in all that partakes of human life. That the intellectual element, however, precedes the other, we learn as from one who gives in order an account of the making of man; and we learn also that his community and kindred with the irrational is for man a provision for reproduction. For he says first that “God created man in the image of God” (showing by these words, as the Apostle says, that in such a being there is no male or female): then he adds the peculiar attributes of human nature, “male and female created He them.
17.4 Now that we have thus cleared up these matters, let us return to our former point,—how it was that after the making of His image God contrived for His work the distinction of male and female. I say that the preliminary speculation we have completed is of service for determining this question; for He Who brought all things into being and fashioned Man as a whole by His own will to the Divine image, did not wait to see the number of souls made up to its proper fulness by the gradual additions of those coming after; but while looking upon the nature of man in its entirety and fulness by the exercise of His foreknowledge, and bestowing upon it a lot exalted and equal to the angels, since He saw beforehand by His all-seeing power the failure of their will to keep a direct course to what is good, and its consequent declension from the angelic life, in order that the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by its fall from that mode by which the angels were increased and multiplied,—for this reason, I say, He formed for our nature that contrivance for increase which befits those who had fallen into sin, implanting in mankind, instead of the angelic majesty of nature, that animal and irrational mode by which they now succeed one another.


St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.24, FC 37, p. 394
Virginity was practiced in Paradise … After the fall, … to keep the race from dwindling and being destroyed by death, marriage was devised, so that by the begetting of children the race of men might be preserved.

But they may ask: What, then, does “male and female” mean, and “increase and multiply”? To which we shall reply that the “increase and multiply” does not mean increasing by the marriage union exclusively, because if they had kept the commandment unbroken forever, God could have increased the race by some other means. But, since God, Who knows all things before they come to be, saw by His foreknowledge how they were to fall and be condemned to death, He made provision beforehand by creating them male and female and commanding them to increase and multiply.

St. Maximus the Confessor, On Various Perplexing Topics, PG 91, 1309A
The distinguishing qualities of male and female were not at all contingent on the divine intention concerning man’s generation. Foreknown to God was yet another way of increasing mankind into a multitude.


.... note that St. John is writing this in a work entitled THE EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

 

[GregConstantine]

"When did marriage begin? When man sinned. Before that, there was no marriage, not in the present-day sense. It was only after the Fall, after Adam and Eve had been expelled from paradise, that Adam “knew” Eve (Gen 4.1) and thus marriage began. Why then?"

I mentioned this to the LGBT group, when I told them this, almost everyone in the room had shocked facial expressions in response.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That does not mean they didn't reproduce the way we did either. It simple is not referenced.

most monastics I have spoken to, in addition to what jckstraw posted, say they were virginal. St Nektarios I am pretty sure says the same thing in his book Christology. kinda hard for a glorified body to have a hymen that tears, forgive the crudeness. especially considering pre Fall Adam and Eve were dispassionate.

 

[buzuxi02]

"When did marriage begin? When man sinned. Before that, there was no marriage, not in the present-day sense. It was only after the Fall, after Adam and Eve had been expelled from paradise, that Adam “knew” Eve (Gen 4.1) and thus marriage began. Why then?"

I mentioned this to the LGBT group, when I told them this, almost everyone in the room had shocked facial expressions in response.

Haha, Eden would have been quite crowded with all the females being able to procreate forever. Surprised the lgbtxyz group didn't say God would have introduced contraceptives!

 

[GregConstantine]

That was a partial response to the question of identity. I was explaining to them that we do not find our ultimate source of identity in our sexuality but in God and in communion with God, and being created in His image and likeness. (I was referencing the story in the Gospel about the widow and the 7 brothers, and how Christ said that in the next life they not given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven) They were shocked to hear that this was a Christian teaching. I think that was what they were shocked about.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the first case, there could be no question of sexual intercourse, since we are not talking about procreation but creation of the world by God (and besides, there would have no been no men to engage in intercourse or not before the first men, so it's kind of a moot point then). Calling Adam and Eve's creation virginal makes as much sense to me as calling the cooking of my breakfast virginal. As for the Son - well, we're talking about the generation of a purely spiritual being. Seems like apples and oranges to me, if I may reference my breakfast again.

it is in a sense, because most folks look at the unfallen world through post fall eyes. I think jckstraw's quotes provided enough evidence.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sex, like most things, can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Whether it occurred before the fall is a matter of some speculation.

True....