But in her conversation with the evil tempter, although Eve mentioned God, she thought only of herself, and although she mentioned God's commandment, she still did not think about the commandment, but only about the imaginary and real properties of the forbidden tree. Therefore she did not take into account all the conditions under which the forbidden tree could become either a means to the real knowledge of good and evil, or an instrument of certain death, and she herself quite frankly explained how this happened to her. The serpent, he says, has deceived me (Gen. 3:13). Obviously, she was deceived by the unusually easy possibility of attaining divine knowledge of good and evil.

Consequently, it transgressed God's commandment only through an unfortunate mistake, i.e. not to the evil of God, not in the form of deliberate opposition to His will, but only to the imaginary good of itself, namely in the form of attaining that lofty knowledge which people undoubtedly desired and to which they undoubtedly strove, but which in reality they did not yet possess.

According to the biblical story, people ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, "and the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves, and made themselves girdles" (Gen. 3:7). This hasty concern of people to cover their nakedness as soon as possible shows very convincingly that they were not yet aware that they had committed a crime, because otherwise, of course, they would not have had the thought that they were naked, but first of all the thought that they were criminals, and therefore, first of all, they would not have been ashamed of their nakedness, but their sinful deception – namely, that they so gullible succumbed to gross deception and so thoughtlessly violated God's commandment. But biblical history clearly and positively says that at first they were ashamed only of their nakedness. Consequently, this feeling of shame, although it appeared in them in undoubted dependence on the crime they had committed, nevertheless before they became aware of their criminality; so that its appearance should be considered not as the first consequence of the Fall, but as a direct continuation of the very sinful process that had just been expressed in the violation of God's commandment. On the basis of a very clear, though complex, psychology of this process, we can take it for granted that after people had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree, they naturally began to expect for themselves some special miraculous insight, and this naïve expectation naturally allowed them to indulge themselves in advance with the bliss of divine knowledge. It is very understandable that in such an elated mood they could see in themselves only the future possessors of the highest perfection; And it is no less clear that from this point of view they literally wanted to look at themselves, i.e., they actually examined themselves complacently, i.e., they simply admired themselves as future perfections. But this pleasant occupation, according to the law of contrast, psychologically necessarily led them to one thought, which was not at all in harmony with their mood and from which they could not get rid of it at all. They wanted to see themselves as special, superior beings, but in fact they saw themselves only as the physical nature of animals. It goes without saying that they had seen themselves before, and knew well the external structure of their organisms, and they also knew well that in the physical sense they did not differ at all from many animals. But before this circumstance did not bother them in the least, because they did not yet have any desire to see in themselves more than they really found in themselves. But now, when they were expecting an essential change in their situation, the eyes of both of them were opened, and they learned that the naked, that is, they had the persistent idea that they were very much like ordinary animals, and that this thought, by bringing them back from the pleasant world of dreams to the world of present reality, thereby humiliated them, as it were, and consequently displeased them. – they were ashamed not of what could actually make them mere animals, but of the very thought of their proximity to the animal world; and as a consequence it was they who hastened to conceal from the world and from themselves their unmistakable resemblance to animals, in order only to separate themselves from this world and not to see what told them of their insignificance.

But people could not stay in a state of deception for long. As time passed, and the miraculous insight did not appear and did not appear, their faith in this insight naturally had to collapse; Because, weary of vain waiting, they could not help but be troubled at last by a heavy premonition of a possible mistake, and could not help asking themselves the anxious question whether they were not waiting for such a miracle, which in reality would not happen at all. In view of the circumstances of this doubt, they naturally had to turn to the event which had served as the basis of their vain hopes; And in view of the circumstances of their alarming situation, they naturally had to turn to the question which they had not previously thought to pose to themselves: Is it possible to attain divine knowledge by such an external means as the eating of the fruit of the tree? And the first people probably raised and resolved this question, because, according to the biblical story, the fog of deception disappeared in them, and they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise (Gen. 3:8). Obviously, they remembered that the tree of knowledge in their considerations was only a tree of knowledge, but in fact it was not only a tree of knowledge, but, moreover, a tree forbidden by God, so that, wishing to attain divine knowledge, they thought to attain it by transgressing God's commandment. Therefore, they now realized that they were criminals, and this consciousness struck them with a feeling of horror. Because of their deep reverence for God, they could not forgive themselves for forgetting about the commandment given to them, and because of their deep awareness of the guilt of this forgetfulness, they could not ask God for forgiveness. Therefore, the near presence of God was frightening to them, and they decided to flee from the presence of God. – says the sacred historian of this great drama, – Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of paradise (Gen. 3:8).

We cannot have the slightest doubt that the unfortunate criminals did not wish to flee from the court, but only from the face of God, because the feeling of God's presence must undoubtedly have increased their spiritual anguish. Out of a sense of shame before God for their crime, they naturally had to wish now that the omniscient God, knowing of their crime, would leave them to the mercy of fate, and they could die without experiencing unspeakable suffering from their possible encounter with God, before whom they were guilty and with whom they no longer dared to converse. But in the thicket of the garden where they had disappeared, Adam clearly heard God's question addressed to him: "Where are you?" From this question it was possible to understand that God did not need paradise, but only man, and that, therefore, despite its fall, God still did not change His attitude towards it and did not want to abandon it. Meanwhile, man changed dramatically and, due to his spiritual state, could not be in his former relationship to God. Therefore, what was he to do now, in view of God's clear desire to see him without fail? He did not dare to show himself to God, and at the same time he did not dare to tell God about his crime, and therefore he decided to answer: "I heard Thy voice in paradise, and I was afraid, because I am naked, and I hid myself" (Gen. 3:9-10). Of course, Adam was fully aware that he was a criminal, and therefore in his heart he directly called himself by the name of a criminal, but it was excruciatingly difficult for him to tell God about this, and therefore it was quite natural that he wanted to avoid this torment, and it is quite understandable that in his answer to God he did not express the main truth, under the weight of which he was really perishing. But God was waiting for the truth, and therefore a new question: Did you not eat of the tree from which I forbade you to eat? He himself helped the man to endure the pain and shame of the criminal from his own story about his crime to the very Saint before whom he was guilty. Adam told God about his crime and told how it was committed: "The woman whom you gave me, she gave me, and I ate." And the wife followed the example of her husband, and also sincerely confessed, and told how exactly the sin happened to her: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Gen. 3:11-13). This short conversation was limited to the first attitude of people to God after they transgressed God's commandment. The most characteristic and most remarkable feature of this conversation is undoubtedly that people did not ask God for forgiveness. For the moral characterization of the first criminals, this circumstance is of such great importance that we must certainly clarify it. After all, people quite frankly admitted before God the fact of the crime committed; and by their fear of God, as well as by their desire to flee from Him, they have clearly shown that they are aware and confess their guilt that they have violated God's commandment; and they knew even before that the guilt of this violation would certainly lead to their death. Why, then, did they not ask for mercy? Such behavior on their part, of course, with full awareness of their guilt, is possible and necessary only in the only case if they themselves recognized their crime as completely inexcusable. In this case, they could not even think of pardon, because the very thought of pardon is an obvious excuse for guilt. For in order that, while they are conscious of their crime, they may still ask forgiveness for it, it is absolutely necessary that they should reflect in such a way that, however great their crime is, it is not yet so great that it cannot be forgiven; so that if God does not forgive them, it will not be because their transgression is not excusable, but only because God does not seem to be a being who is willing and able to forgive. Consequently, in order to ask for pardon, people had to first forgive themselves. And if only they had forgiven themselves, then surely they would have justified themselves before God and would have begun to beg Him for forgiveness. And if in fact this did not happen, then it means that they could not forgive themselves for their crime, and in this case it is very easy to understand what, in fact, determined this moral impossibility for them. Obviously, they did not think that they were perishing, but only that they were guilty before God, i.e., in other words, they did not think about themselves, but only about God; therefore, they loved God more than themselves, and for this reason it was they who could not forgive themselves for their crime[288].

According to the biblical formula of the commandment, God did not say to man: "Do not eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, for otherwise I will punish you with death for it; and he said, "Do not eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, for otherwise you will die." That is, God did not threaten punishment for violating His commandment, but only warned a person in advance about what would follow if the commandment given to him was violated by them. Consequently, the fulfillment of the commandment was not necessary for God, but only for people in the interests of their moral perfection, and consequently – by transgressing the commandment man could only destroy himself, and by this crime he could not inflict an endless insult on God at all. In view of this, the sharp objections with which the preaching of this offense inevitably meets are completely understandable, and which, unfortunately, are completely unjustly addressed to the Biblical account of the fall of people. In fact, the Bible says absolutely nothing about this impossible infliction of some kind of offense on God, and on the basis of the biblical text one can only condemn this evil invention of scholastic theology. Everyone, of course, can understand that the boundless greatness of God absolutely excludes the possibility of any emotions in His life. A person can be indifferent to God, and he can hate Him, and he can even want to offend Him, but this desire can only be a man's desire, because God can see in this desire not an insult to Himself, but only the moral ugliness of the person who has such desires, and the sheer madness of the person who thinks to offend the Great One, when He is immeasurably higher than all, and, consequently, He can never and in no way be offended by anyone[289].

This is obvious to us because the first people, as we know, had no hostile feeling towards God at all, and if they violated His commandment, it was not at all out of a desire to oppose His will. In fact, they only wished to attain divine knowledge of good and evil, and there is absolutely nothing criminal in this desire on their part. True, they thought to realize their desire by eating forbidden fruits, and it is true that in this case they really violated God's commandment, but any crime that is not the goal of human activity and is committed without any intention to commit it, cannot be blamed on man. And people have violated God's commandment precisely without any desire or intention to violate it without fail. Consequently, this violation can be blamed on them only for some special reason, i.e., not because they ate the forbidden fruit, but because, having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they sinned in some way, regardless of the fact that the use of these fruits was forbidden to them. what exactly happened to people when they violated God's commandment? We know that at the time of the transgression of God's commandment, people had a wrong idea about the forbidden tree. They thought that the fruits of this tree have a special magical property to give knowledge of good and evil. And we know that people did not confine themselves only to forming their false opinion about the forbidden tree, but also wanted to attain the desired knowledge in this way, i.e. with the help of the fruit of the forbidden tree. They wanted their high position in the world to depend not on the free development of their spiritual powers, but on their physical nourishment with certain fruits, which means that they really wanted their life and destiny to be determined not by themselves, but by external material causes. And they actually fulfilled this desire of theirs. They actually turned to the help of the forbidden tree in the complete conviction that the pseudo-magical power of its fruits, without any work on their part, would mechanically make them more perfect. In these calculations they were, of course, grossly mistaken, but the fact of the fulfillment of their intention was nevertheless accomplished, and therefore the undoubted error of their calculations does not in the least alter the real significance and meaning of their fatal act: by their superstitious act, people voluntarily subordinated themselves to external nature and voluntarily destroyed that universal significance which they could and should have had according to the spiritual nature of their personality. As free-rational agents they could be, and indeed were, in a living, direct relation to the divine Spirit, and as material beings they could be, and indeed were, natural intermediaries between God and the material world; because the material world, which created and supported their physical nature, served in them the goals of spiritual development and moral perfection, which means that it was a participant in their vital service to God, and therefore it entered through them into living communion with God and was spiritualized in them. Now people have destroyed this position. Instead of being free executors of the universal goal of world existence, they, on the contrary, turned to the help of the world, so that it would fulfill their eternal destiny for them by its mechanical forces. By this foolish act they have degraded themselves to the position of the mere things of the world and have made the whole of the world's existence meaningless. In fact, within the material world, only human beings are the actual images of God, and in the moral life of human beings alone, the blind material world can obey the rational law of freedom and can develop the unconditional values of spiritual perfection. And people have subordinated the law of freedom to the law of mechanical causality and have made their spiritual perfection causally dependent on the use of certain fruits. It is clear that they perverted the normal order of world existence, and it is clear that, by virtue of this perversion, the world must have turned out to be a vain creation of God.

From this it becomes quite clear what exactly was the first crime of people. It consisted in the fact that by superstitious eating of tree fruits, people destroyed the truth of the divine idea of existence and made completely aimless both their personal existence and the existence of all material nature. For the essence of the first crime, therefore, the main significance is not that men ate of the forbidden fruit, but that they superstitiously ate the fruit of the tree in order to thereby become more perfect. They would have been criminals in the same way, and exactly the same criminals as they have become, if they had not transgressed God's commandment, but had used some other material object for this purpose, if, for example, for the sake of acquiring higher knowledge, they had decided to moisten their heads with water from the Euphrates, or to carry on their heads some branches of paradise. But by themselves they probably would never have created a superstitious attitude towards material things. This attitude appeared in them only under the influence of deception on the part of the devil, and it was necessary for the devil to tempt them not with any other material object, but only with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because he undoubtedly intended to make them not superstitions, but deliberate transgressors of God's commandment for the sake of deliberate resistance to God out of a sense of hostility towards Him. Therefore, it is quite understandable that people have created a superstitious attitude towards the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and from this it is quite clear why it was precisely the first crime of people that turned out to be at the same time the transgression of God's commandment, and from this it is finally completely clear why it was precisely the transgression of God's commandment, although people had no intention of transgressing it, that was, however, an undoubted crime of people.

Deceived by the false idea of the forbidden tree, people have perverted the normal relationship between the world and the individual and have taken a completely different position in the world in which they were actually placed by God. This violation of the divine world order naturally had to entail their inevitable death. But since, in all the circumstances of the case, this crime was only an unfortunate mistake on their part, because they themselves were afraid of their crime and condemned it as inexcusable, the great message of biblical history is deeply understandable, that God did not abandon criminal people and did not change his attitude towards them. Great in power and infinite in love, He immediately came to the aid of people as soon as they realized their crime. This consciousness clearly showed that in relation to people the devil had not achieved his goal, that fallen people, although they turned out to be unworthy of God, nevertheless they still wanted to belong to Him alone, and they recognized Him alone as the eternal Lord of existence. From this, of course, the sad history of human suffering naturally arose, and the omniscient God foresaw this history: He saw that in the person of their powerful tempter people had acquired for themselves an implacable enemy, and that this enemy would not rest until he had destroyed in them the last spark of their reverent love for God; and at the same time He saw that fallen men are capable of good and desire to be good, and that therefore those of them who do not wish to become enemies of God will suffer deeply for their love of good, and suffer in vain: and so He was pleased to warn men beforehand of the moral struggle that inevitably awaits them, "I will put enmity," He said to the serpent, "between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen. 3:15). This does not mean, of course, that God wanted to create enmity between the kingdom of good and the kingdom of evil. Such enmity had already appeared, and there was nothing to create it. The word of God, obviously, speaks only about the object of enmity, that God Himself will constitute the object of enmity between good people and evil spirits, that people will fight for their belonging to God, and fallen spirits for the destruction of God's power over people. Consequently, God's speech to the serpent contains a direct statement that, despite the fall of people, God nevertheless recognizes them as His people and makes them His champions in the world of crime.

The Bible does not tell us exactly how the unfortunate criminals felt when they heard God's clear will that they were still His people. And yet divine love was not yet limited to this condescension towards people, it was also manifested by positive solicitude for them. Along with the benevolent warning of people that they would certainly have to fight for Him, God also revealed to them a rich source of moral strength for the struggle. He gave people a positive hope that their struggle with evil would not be endless, because they would have such a Descendant who would crush the proud head of the serpent. When this will happen and how it will be, God did not say; but in order that people would not form any false thought about the future defeat of evil, He warned them beforehand that they themselves would not see this event, that, on the contrary, they would now be overtaken by labor and sickness, and they would have to return to the ground from which they were taken (Gen. 3:16-19). With this warning, He protected people from possible deception and disappointment, and at the same time strengthened them for a courageous struggle against evil. After this warning, people could not be tempted by the various calamities of life, and even in the most difficult moment of suffering, they could not doubt and could not think of God that He had betrayed His eternal word and renounced them. God told them everything that should be and what really will be, and it was no longer God's foreknowledge, of course, that was the reason why it was God's warning about their sufferings that began to be justified in the first place.

People have made themselves dependent on the external world, and therefore it is quite natural that they should find themselves in exactly the position in which they themselves voluntarily placed themselves. First of all, they saw that both paradise and the tree of life did not really belong to the earth per se, but only to the order of life on earth that God had established from the beginning; so that in the order of life which they themselves had introduced by their superstitious act, neither paradise nor the tree of life was any longer on earth. As a result, they saw that the real dependence on the world was not at all what they would like to be in. In fact, this dependence required of them much hard and persistent labor for the mere procuring of bread, and gave them much painful sorrow on account of the mere loss of labor. They learned that it is possible to sow grain, but only "thorns and thistles" will grow; they knew toil and sorrow and sickness, and at last they had to experience the last expression of their dependence on the world – to return to the land from which they had once been taken. As physical beings, they have always, of course, been subject to the physical law of life, and therefore have always lived only by destroying the physical basis of life. But until the time of their fall, they had at their disposal the blessed tree of life, with the help of which it was not difficult for them to replenish their reserves of physical energy, and therefore they could observe the phenomenon of death only in the nature around them, and they themselves could exist forever. After their fall, this possibility of immortality ceased to exist for them. They have subordinated their psychic life to the physical law of mechanical causality, and thus have introduced their spirit into the general chain of world things. Consequently, they could naturally now live only that life which is possible and exists by the nature of the physical world, and under these conditions death is inevitable. This means that death did not come to people from somewhere, as, for example, God's punishment for sin; it came to them by itself, as a natural and necessary consequence of the crime that people had committed. In fact, the world in which people wished to live and into which they actually entered by the fact of their crime, God did not create and did not want to create, and all the phenomena that exist in this world as in the world of crime do not exist according to the creative will of God, but only according to the mechanical forces of physical nature. The same world that was really created by God, man destroyed by his crime.

4.

The study and determination of the necessary conditions under which the liberation of the world from evil could take place.