A question regarding EO view on the Fall of Adam and Eve

Lukaris · Apr 23, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
Adam and Eve would have produced children in an unfallen way (virginally, however that works) since the command to be fruitful and multiply came before the Fall.

and then the Son would have become Incarnate.

Was St. Irenaeus alluding to something like this when he called the Theotokos the new Eve?

anna ~ grace · Apr 23, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
like Mary did

That’s awesome.

ArmyMatt · Apr 23, 2021

Lukaris said:
Was St. Irenaeus alluding to something like this when he called the Theotokos the new Eve?

yep

ArmyMatt · Apr 23, 2021

anna ~ grace said:
That’s awesome.

indeed

Phronema · Apr 23, 2021

Lukaris said:
Was St. Irenaeus alluding to something like this when he called the Theotokos the new Eve?

Here is a quick read you may enjoy on the subject. In particular the first few paragraphs.

The Second Adam Brings the New Eve into Real Life: Homily for the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos in the Orthodox Church – Eastern Christian Insights

St_Worm2 · Apr 23, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
like Mary did

ArmyMatt said:
sex as we know it is because we are fallen.

So the EOC believes that reproduction in an unfallen world would have involved women alone? (or women and the Holy Spirit perhaps?)

How did the EOC come to this conclusion?

Thanks again! (I hope you don't mind the questions? This is the first time that I've heard of beliefs like these before)

--David

ArmyMatt · Apr 23, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
So the EOC believes that reproduction in an unfallen world would have involved women alone? (or women and the Holy Spirit perhaps?)

How did the EOC come to this conclusion?

Thanks again! (I hope you don't mind the questions? This is the first time that I've heard of beliefs like these before)

--David

no, it would have been between men and women, only virginal, painless, and physically pleasureless.

truefiction1 · Apr 23, 2021

St_Worm2 said:
So the EOC believes that reproduction in an unfallen world would have involved women alone? (or women and the Holy Spirit perhaps?)

How did the EOC come to this conclusion?

Thanks again! (I hope you don't mind the questions? This is the first time that I've heard of beliefs like these before)

--David

I think that much of this was speculation on the part of some fathers and not hard doctrine, but I can't be sure, presently. The thing that we can be certain of is that pre-fall reproduction would have been sinless reproduction, regardless of what form or forms the process of reproduction consisted of. Could physical sexual intercourse between an unfallen man and an unfallen woman be sinless? Sure it could, because the Word of God assures us that "the the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:15). Since we are not pure on account of the fall, our sexual intercourse is usually tainted with the sins of our fallen nature. That is why some fathers believed that pre-fall reproduction would must have been virginal somehow. I personally prefer to speak of virginity with regards only the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God within the flesh the Most Holy Mother of God, and with regards to those personally called to blessed virginal (celibate) existence in Christ. I prefer not to hear virginity applied to those called into the blessed and Holy Matrimonial existence in Christ. It seems to border on being inappropriate, if not crossing that line.

ArmyMatt · Apr 23, 2021

truefiction1 said:
The thing that we can be certain of is that pre-fall reproduction would have been sinless reproduction, regardless of what form or forms the process of reproduction consisted of.

except that if it's sinless reproduction, there would also be no physical rupturing either.

which is virginal.

truefiction1 · Apr 23, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
except that if it's sinless reproduction, there would also be no physical rupturing either.

which is virginal.

Things such as physical rupturing and pain come into existence only after the fall. Pre-fallen human procreative measures would indeed have a physical dimension, however, and not have been strictly spiritual or angelic in nature. The Holy Trinity did create human beings who commune in every way both spiritual and bodily, and "male and female He created them". Their bodies were not as ours are after the fall, so intercourse between them would naturally be different than our intercourse is. I only make such points for the purpose of clarity, because I doubt that any statement suggesting the absence of a physical dimension to male and female procreative intercourse before the fall would be Theologically incorrect: i.e. it would be sort of gnostic in it's leanings. I'm also not fully on board with a notion that Communion with God through the medium of all of the physical blessings given/created were necessarily without "pleasure", although unfallen pleasure would strictly have been without sin. I receive Holy Communion, which is the real Body and Blood of Christ in the forms of bread and wine. The bread and wine taste very good and there is pleasure in eating and drinking them. Does this mean that I sin by eating and drinking? God Himself commands us to eat and drink of it. Similarly, God commands husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply. The act of being fruitful and multiplying probably was made by God to have a pleasurable aspect to it, just like eating the fruits He blessed Adam and Eve with in paradise, but if pleasurable, did they commit sin by obeying His command? Because we are fallen, we must deny ourselves and it is hard. Adam and Eve weren't fallen until they sinned, so denying themselves was in their very nature, and so it was easy until they were tempted and fell. For them, eating could be pleasant without being gluttonous at the same time. Sexual intercourse could be especially pleasant without being lustful... etcetera... In sum, they Loved God above all so that whatever pleasure they experienced only served to deepen, broaden, and heighten their Love of God and one another. It's impossible for us to imagine such and existence.

ArmyMatt · Apr 23, 2021

truefiction1 said:
Things such as physical rupturing and pain come into existence only after the fall. Pre-fallen human procreative measures would indeed have a physical dimension, however, and not have been strictly spiritual or angelic in nature. The Holy Trinity did create human beings who commune in every way both spiritual and bodily, and "male and female He created them". Their bodies were not as ours are after the fall, so intercourse between them would naturally be different than our intercourse is. I only make such points for the purpose of clarity, because I doubt that any statement suggesting the absence of a physical dimension to male and female procreative intercourse before the fall would be Theologically incorrect: i.e. it would be sort of gnostic in it's leanings. I'm also not fully on board with a notion that Communion with God through the medium of all of the physical blessings given/created were necessarily without "pleasure", although unfallen pleasure would strictly have been without sin. I receive Holy Communion, which is the real Body and Blood of Christ in the forms of bread and wine. The bread and wine taste very good and there is pleasure in eating and drinking them. Does this mean that I sin by eating and drinking? God Himself commands us to eat and drink of it. Similarly, God commands husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply. The act of being fruitful and multiplying probably was made by God to have a pleasurable aspect to it, just like eating the fruits He blessed Adam and Eve with in paradise, but if pleasurable, did they commit sin by obeying His command? Because we are fallen, we must deny ourselves and it is hard. Adam and Eve weren't fallen until they sinned, so denying themselves was in their very nature, and so it was easy until they were tempted and fell. For them, eating could be pleasant without being gluttonous at the same time. Sexual intercourse could be especially pleasant without being lustful... etcetera... In sum, they Loved God above all so that whatever pleasure they experienced only served to deepen, broaden, and heighten their Love of God and one another. It's impossible for us to imagine such and existence.

I never said it would not be physical, only that it was virginal. and the pleasure derived was from being in full communion with God and the other. not through stimulated nerves.

truefiction1 · Apr 23, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
I never said it would not be physical, only that it was virginal. and the pleasure derived was from being in full communion with God and the other. not through stimulated nerves.

Fair enough, though even as virginal, it may well have involved the stimulation of unfallen human nerves, though this would have been a natural, sinless result of, rather than the primary motive for engaging in the acts of sexual procreation.

ArmyMatt · Apr 24, 2021

truefiction1 said:
Fair enough, though even as virginal, it may well have involved the stimulation of unfallen human nerves, though this would have been a natural, sinless result of, rather than the primary motive for engaging in the acts of sexual procreation.

I don't think so. it's pretty clear that the pleasure from conception (if that's what we're talking about) is due to the pain of childbirth. the Virgin had no pain at Christ's birth because she had no pleasure at His conception.

Light of the East · Apr 30, 2021

ArmyMatt said:
I don't think so. it's pretty clear that the pleasure from conception (if that's what we're talking about) is due to the pain of childbirth. the Virgin had no pain at Christ's birth because she had no pleasure at His conception.

Is that a statement from the Early Fathers or some sort of revelation? It seems to me that the pleasure of the nuptial union is a kind of precursor to the joy we will feel when we experience full union with Christ. I have seen parallels in the descriptions of the union of a man and woman and the union of the soul to Christ. Are they off base?

Thank you.

ArmyMatt · May 1, 2021

Light of the East said:
Is that a statement from the Early Fathers or some sort of revelation? It seems to me that the pleasure of the nuptial union is a kind of precursor to the joy we will feel when we experience full union with Christ. I have seen parallels in the descriptions of the union of a man and woman and the union of the soul to Christ. Are they off base?

Thank you.

it's actually a concession for the joy and the real pleasure we lost in the Fall. plus, if sex weren't pleasurable, we probably would not do it as much even in marriage.

abacabb3 · May 1, 2021

Answer to the OP is easy. The saints say if there was no disobedience, Adam and Eve would have attained Theosis and impassibility (i.e. immortality that cannot be lost, because sin is not possible in the state of impassibility and Theosis).

abacabb3 · May 1, 2021

For more info:
The Orthodox Doctrine of Original Sin: A Comprehensive Treatment – Orthodox Christian Theology

A question regarding EO view on the Fall of Adam and Eve

Orthodox Christian

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Orthodox Christian

Simul Justus et Peccator

Regular Member

Fool

Regular Member

Fool

Regular Member

Fool

Regular Member

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads