The Word of God shows us that a state of grace is natural for man, that there is no "pure" human nature independent of God. A person deprived of grace is no longer a person in the full sense of the word. He is again made "like cattle".

The next divine act was the creation of Eve. For the first time we encounter "not good" in the Bible in connection with the fact that Adam does not find a "helper like him" (Gen. 2:20), among all creation, and God says that "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). Thus, the need of a person to have his own kind is emphasized. For what? Let us recall the Savior's answer to the question of what is the greatest commandment in the Law. Its Savior indicates two parts: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy might" and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matt. 22:37).

It should be noted that when it is said about the appearance of Eve, another word is used, that "the Lord God created from a rib" (Gen. 2:22), as if he did not "create". Eve is not a fundamentally new creation, different from Adam – it is precisely here that the unity of the human race and the complete unity and identity of this nature, which henceforth begins to exist in two sexes, is indicated. But there is a certain primacy and secondariness in the fact that Eve is taken from her husband, although Adam says: "Behold, this is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23), that is, it is actually alter ego, the other I. Eve is called a "helper" to Adam like him (2:18). In the opinion of St. Philaret, "this is done in commemoration of the same nature as him, in contrast to other kinds of animals; the ministry closest to him (1 Cor. 1:9); Constant conversation with him and inseparable cohabitation" [81, part 1, p. 46].

The appearance of Eve is also preceded by the Divine Council (Gen. 2:18). The need for separation of the sexes can be explained in different ways. The ascetic tradition asserts that the creation of Eve took place in anticipation of the Fall and the need for further reproduction of people. In modern theological literature, greater emphasis is placed on the realization in marriage of the possibility of communication and perfection in love. These interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

One might wonder: Did marriage exist in Paradise, or did the appearance of offspring to be fruitful and multiply and inhabit the earth have to happen in some other way? Here, too, opinions differ. Referring to the early works of St. John Chrysostom, it is argued that marriage did not exist in paradise and is a consequence of sin. Here it is worth turning to the words of the saint himself. He says: "The primordial one lived in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed an assistant, and he appeared; and at the same time, marriage did not yet seem necessary. It would not have existed until now, and people would have remained without it, living in paradise, as in heaven, and enjoying conversation with God; carnal lust, conception, childbearing sickness, and all corruption in general would not have access to their souls, but, like a bright stream flowing from a pure source, people would dwell in that dwelling, adorned with virginity<... >What marriage, tell me, begat Adam, what diseases of childbearing produced Eve? You can't say anything about it. Why do you fear and fear in vain, lest with the termination of marriage the human race also cease? Thousands of angels serve God, and thousands upon thousands of archangels stand before Him (Dan, VII, 10), and not one of them has descended by succession, from childbirth, childbearing, and conception. In this way, God could have created people without marriage, just as He created the first, from whom all people have descended" [29, vol. 1, pp. 307-308].

From these words it is clear that the word "marriage" can be understood in different ways. In this case, the saint speaks not about the spiritual side of marriage, but about its carnal component, polemicizing with those who objected to virginity, referring to the need to continue the human race. Many holy fathers believed that in paradise it should have been different, but the present one was established after the Fall. However, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, where the Apostle Paul likens the relationship between Christ and the Church to marriage, the same St. John Chrysostom speaks of marriage as a mystery, which "was pointed out as something great and wondrous by the blessed Moses, or rather God" [29, vol. 11, p. 172]. That is, marriage can also be understood as an image of pure communion in love, devoid of any sin and passion. That is why there is a ban in the Church to abhor marriage, which was confirmed by the Councils. In the Church, marriage in its earthly sense is not obligatory, since the unity of human hypostases can be realized directly through the Church, bypassing marriage. Monasticism is another way of realizing this unity.

The union of husband and wife in the Book of Genesis is presented as indissoluble, eternal, which is associated with the immortality of man, since he was not supposed to die, but was created for eternity.

How are we to understand the words "a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife" (Gen. 2:24), if there was no other father besides God?

On the example of this question, we can see that if we take a single verse from the Holy Scriptures out of context, then we can draw the most unexpected conclusions on its basis. This has always been used by the founders of various heresies. If we look at the context, as is always required in interpretation, we will see that these words are a continuation of the words of Adam, who says of the woman that she is "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23). First, these words may have been addressed to Adam as a command to his descendants, since the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" had already been given. Secondly, these words are attributed by some interpreters to Moses as the writer of the Book of Genesis, who gave some commentary on the decree of marriage. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ appropriates these words to God (Matt. 19:5). Be that as it may, they relate, of course, to the subsequent generations, which must come from Adam and Eve. In addition, according to the explanation of St. Philaret of Moscow, the commandment to cling to one's wife refers to the common life, but not to the relationship to the father or mother. If this commandment spoke of the obligation to forsake and forget both one's father and mother forever, then why does God command: "Honor thy father and mother" (Exodus 20:12)? How to read them if a person has left them forever? So we are talking about a very definite side of the matter and there is no contradiction.

Blessed Jerome of Stridon believed that there was a prophecy here. "The first man, Adam, as the first prophet, prophesied this about Christ and about the Church, that our Lord and Saviour would leave His Father God and His mother, the heavenly Jerusalem, and would come to earth for the sake of His body the Church, and would form it from His side: for which purpose the Word was flesh" [quoted by 79, p. 434].

1.4. On the Incorruptibility of the Primordial Creation

Was there a mortal creature before the fall of Adam? St. Augustine believed that animals in the primordial world were mortal.

However, the majority of the Fathers – for example, St. John Chrysostom, St. Nilus of Sinai and St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Theophan the Recluse – agree that creation was incorruptible before the fall of man, and that with the fall of man, with the death of man, death enters the created world as well. "Adam was created with an incorruptible body, yet material, and not yet spiritual, and was appointed by the Creator God as an immortal king over the incorruptible world, not only over paradise, but also over all creation that exists under heaven" [66, vol. 1, p. 370]. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus and St. Athanasius the Great said that Adam was also mortal by nature, but since he lived in communion with God, he could remain immortal, this was a matter of his choice.

"When man deviated (from the law) and went beyond the limits allotted to him, God after the flood, knowing the immoderation of people, allowed them to eat everything: 'Eat all these things as herbs.' With this permission, other living creatures also received an unhindered choice in food. So, from that time on, the lion devours the meat, the kites wait for carrion. But at the time when animals were born, kites did not yet look for (this) on earth. For nothing that had received its purpose and existence from God had yet died, and the kites could not be satisfied with this. And there was no strife in nature, for she was in full bloom; hunters have not yet destroyed (animals), for such an occupation (as hunting) has not yet been among people. And the beasts did not torment anyone, for they were not carnivorous. It is the custom of kites to feed on corpses: at that time there were no corpses, nor the smell of corpses, and the food of kites was different... From this conclude that in those days the carnivorous animals acted in the same way; they considered grass to be their food and did not attack each other" [11, p. 6].