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].

In the Holy Scriptures, this idea is confirmed by the words of the Apostle Paul from the Epistle to the Romans that the creation did not submit to vanity voluntarily, and that just as the creature's fall into vanity, that is, to corruption as well, so its liberation is directly connected with man, that is, with his falling into the law of corruption and with his liberation from it (Romans 8:  19–23).

1.5. Human Sojourn in Paradise

According to the Book of Genesis, man is created outside of paradise and is introduced into this paradise. There are no unambiguous interpretations of its location, but since the text mentions the Euphrates River, it is conventionally placed in Mesopotamia. Man is brought to paradise in order to preserve and cultivate it. Again, there are very different interpretations here, ranging from literal ones, which say that man is placed in paradise in order to learn the greatness of God from the greatness of His creations, and up to those who see in the cultivation of paradise the cultivation of one's own soul and bringing it into a god-like state.

In paradise, a person is given certain commandments and commandments (Gen. 2:16, 17). According to one of them, Adam gives names to God's creatures, which means that Adam was able to comprehend the essence of creation, which, say, we do not have now. That is, to name a name means to comprehend what it is in front of you. We are not able to do this now.

In addition to the commandment to cultivate the garden, Adam was told that he could eat of any fruit that is in Paradise, except the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). I would like to draw your attention to these prohibitions. What kind of tree is it? How can a person know good and evil through a tree?

Perhaps the key to the answer is to clarify the meaning of the word "cognition" in this context. "To know" in biblical usage is not only to learn, that is, to receive some information, but to partake of something (see Gen. 4:17). And in this case, by eating the fruit of this tree, that is, through the transgression of God's commandment, a person can really partake of this experience of evil, which does not yet exist for him. For him, evil is a transgression of God's commandment, and with the help of this tree he can transgress it and thus partake of, that is, to know, to experience for himself what evil is.

A perplexing question arises: why was such a tree needed? If it had not existed, God would not have given commandments regarding it, and everything would have been fine. But freedom also presupposes freedom of choice, that is, a person created free, called to abide in the love of God, called to be a friend of God, can also use this freedom in the opposite direction, that is, to renounce God and turn away from God. And it is precisely this tree that gives the opportunity to test and strengthen this freedom. Hence the possibility of realizing this freedom for evil. If man had no opportunity to transgress God's commandment, to hide from God somewhere, then he could not truly be called free.