Ephrem the Syrian and Isaac of Nineveh on the expulsion from Paradise

 

Ephrem the Syrian and Isaac of Nineveh on the expulsion from Paradise

In the Genesis narrative of the creation of Adam and Eve, we are told that they disobey God’s commandment to not eat the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and are then punished for this. The condemnation culminates in verse Genesis 3:22:

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.””[1]

This banishments definitely sounds like a punishment and definitely doesn’t seem that there is some ulterior motive other than to prevent them to become immortal. This hasn’t prevented, however, ancient Christian authors to read the banishment as a providential move from God’s part. I’ll provide two examples: Ephrem the Syrian (fl. 4th century) and Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7th century).

Ephrem the Syrian wrote:

“Having finished this it says, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." [ Gen. 3:22 ] By saying that "he has become like one of us," Scripture also revealed symbolically something about the Trinity. But at the same time God was actually addressing Adam ironically, seeing that Adam had been told, "you will become like God, knowing good and evil." However, although Adam and Eve became aware of both these things from eating the fruit, prior to the fruit they were in practice only aware of the good, hearing about evil by report, but after eating it there was a change, so that they only heard by report of the good, whereas they tasted evil in practice. For the glory in which they had been wrapped left them, and the pains which had previously been kept away from them now dominated them. "And now, lest he stretch out his hand and take from the fruit of the Tree of Life as well, and eat it and live for ever..." [ Gen. 3:22 ] For if he had the audacity to eat of the Tree of which he was commanded not to eat, how much the more would he make a dash for the Tree concerning which he had received no commandment? But because it had been decreed against them that they should exist in toil and sweat, in pains and pangs, God, who when they were still free from the curse and clothed in glory was prepared to give them immortal life, now that they were clothed in the curse, kept them back from eating of the Tree of Life, lest by eating of it and living forever, they would have to remain in a life of pain for eternity. God's intention, then, was that this life-giving gift, which they would have received from the Tree of Life, might not be turned to misery and actually harm them even more than what they had acquired through the Tree of Knowledge. For from the Tree of Knowledge they had acquired temporal pains, whereas the Tree of Life would have made those pains eternal. From the Tree of Knowledge they had acquired death which would release them from the bonds of their pains, whereas the Tree of Life would have made them entombed all their lives, leaving them forever tortured by their pains. So it was that God kept them back from the Tree of Life, for it was not appropriate, either that a life of delight should be provided in the land of curses, or that eternal life should be found in the transient world. Had they eaten, however, one of two things would have happened: either the sentence of death would have been proved false, or the life-giving characteristic of the Tree of Life would have been proved not to be genuine. In order, therefore, that the sentence of death might not be annulled, and the life-giving characteristic of the Tree might not be proved false, God kept Adam at a distance from it, lest he suffer loss from the Tree of Life as well, just as he had already been harmed by the Tree of Knowledge.” (Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 3:22)[2]

That is, the ‘hidden’ intention here is to prevent that, after the first disobedience, immortality itself becomes a problem. In other words, humans aren’t allowed to become immortal for their good: otherwise the condition of immortality would be, for them, a cause of eternal torment.

Isaac of Nineveh also shared a similar view:

“Just as He decreed death, under the appearance of a sentence, for Adam because of sin, and just as He showed that (the sin) existed by means of punishment – even though this (punishment) was not His (real) aim: He showed it as though it was something which (Adam) would receive as a repayment for his wrong, but He hid his true mystery, and under the guise of something to be feared, He concealed His eternal intention concerning death and what His wisdom  was aiming at: even though that this matter might be grievous, ignominious and hard at first, nevertheless in truth it would be the means of transporting us to that wonderful and glorious world. Without it, there would be no way of crossing over from this world and belong there.

By (thus showing) the existence (of sin), the Creator did not say: ‘This [sc. death] will turn out for you to be the cause of good things (to come) and a life more glorious than this’. Rather, He showed it as something which would bring our misfortune and dissolution.

Again, when He expelled Adam and Eve from Paradise, He expelled them under the (outward) aspect of anger: ‘Because you have transgressed the commandment, you have found yourselves outside (Paradise)’ – as though dwelling in Paradise had been taken away from them because they were unworthy. But inside all this stood (the divine) plan, fulfilling and guiding towards the Creator’s original intention from the beginning. It was not disobedience which introduced death to the house of Adam, nor did transgression remove them from Paradise, for it is clear that (God) did not create Adam and Eve to be in Paradise, (just) a small portion of the earth; they were going to subjugate the entire earth. For this reason we do note even say that He removed them because of the commandment which had been transgressed; for it is not the case that, had they not transgressed the commandment, they would have been left in Paradise for ever.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part, 39.4, translation Sebastian P. Brock)[3]

Here Isaac seems to go even further and says that even death was providential and not the result of the transgression.

I find it interesting because both authors assume that there was an unstated, hidden providential purpose behind the sentence of banishment. Both are convinced that God did not change His attitude and His original intention with respect to the Adam and Eve.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). There is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the cont...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone doesn’t exclude an universalist...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Church. This testimony is particularly interesting because it provides evidence that ‘universalism’ was often actively contested in this Tradition. Also, it p...
Read more