Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:49 am**

I see no reason to believe your worldview is fact, and I see a couple of serious internal inconsistencies. There's no motivation for me to look into it. If you think at least this internal inconsistency can be shown to not be one, I'll read what you post. But if you don't even attempt to understand this, the Fall being what seems a rather important aspect of your worldview, why on earth should I?

Posted: **Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:35 am**

Fist and Faith wrote:I see no reason to believe your worldview is fact, and I see a couple of serious internal inconsistencies. There's no motivation for me to look into it. If you think at least this internal inconsistency can be shown to not be one, I'll read what you post. But if you don't even attempt to understand this, the Fall being what seems a rather important aspect of your worldview, why on earth should I?

Well, I'd say that I did indeed 'attempt to understand this' and got an answer to my general satisfaction, but I want a greater level of satisfaction, and one which shows a key point that I have held, so the inconsistency is not proven to be such. Since I DO care about this stuff, there should be nothing to hinder you from caring about it - since you hold that it IS an inconsistency, I would think that you should care enough to inquire on your own. Just as I could not answer all your questions on physics on my own, and would need to ask a physicist, so I need to refer to a better authority than myself. Fr John didn't reply to my last two e-mails, for whatever reason. But in his first e-mails he gave me a satisfactory explanation that is internally consistent. I just want to lay that out together with the tradition behind it. That is the nature of the 'ducks'.

As I said, I will press Fr John again, and will look elsewhere if he has gone offline.

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:40 am**

You don't understand. I think Christianity is a fantasy. Through its lens, you (among many others) find what you need. The answers to various questions; the solutions to various problems; a way to find contentment, happiness, whatever it is each person finds. And that's awesome. I'm very happy for all of you who find what you need. But for me, it's still a fantasy. I don't know of any reason to believe it's real. Further, I have a big problem with some of the things God does in the Bible. Finally, it is not internally consistent. Being a fantasy, there's no motivation for me to put any particular effort into looking into it more than I have. But, being such a widely held worldview (at least some aspects of it are), and one you post about here, it gets a little extra consideration. I'm willing to listen to your attempt to show me this particular thing in a different light. So feel free.

Posted: **Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:30 am**

I apologize for the delays; In part, I had hoped that the very fact that answers could be obtained (and those by no means plumbed to the depths!) would demonstrate that you CAN get an Orthodox interpretation that is consistent with the teachings of the Church. But I think there is bias and resistance to even hearing and considering those answers. One of the problems I see lies in an apparent assumption that any story must be taken only "literally" as we understand the concept today - leaving no room for symbolism, the characteristic Hebrew (and not only) doubling and repetition, and so on. In this modern attitude, if there is a serpent or a tree is described, then that is all that it was. Thus, a Tree of Life might be something put in language that we understand to illustrate something that we could otherwise not grasp, but the literalist would not grasp, or even refuse to grasp this. The literalist would also insist on Creation in 6 24-hr days as we know them now, something that I am not required to believe - although I do not doubt that God could do it if He so chose, I am free to accept more liberal interpretations.

So here is the complete and unedited e-mail that I received from Fr John, who himself would have liked more clarification:

Fr John Matusiak wrote:Sorry for not responding earlier. In checking, for some reason your most recent e-mails ended up in my junk folder -- not sure why.

Nevertheless...

YOU WRITE: What I mean is that it speaks of the Tree of Life in Gen 3:22, and you give a brief explanation that that is a reference to the Kingdom of God. I wonder if you could point me to the Orthodox thought that makes that connection/clarification?

RESPONSE: While I include some quotes from the Holy Fathers below, it is impossible for me to scour every writing of every Holy Father in this regard. Also, since I am not familiar with the brief explanation to which you refer -- obviously it appears on www.oca.org but where exactly, you do not share; also, it may be in someone else's writing, rather than my own, which makes it difficult to offer further illumination on a text I have not read, nor the term as it appears in the context in which you state it appears on our site. If you could send me the text in question, I will take a look at it.

YOU WRITE: I have no trouble accepting it; my own attitude is "When in doubt, the Church is right and I am wrong"..But I would like to know which of the Church fathers (or authorities) spoke on that matter and clarified it for us - St John Chrysostom? St John Climacus? Etc. In short, someone is asking me, "Where do you get an explanation that this is so? Where is the authority that says this? Why is it NOT as it appears to him (an unbeliever asking questions) that God is proposing to deprive man of eternal life? - something that I am sure is not the case and that must have been discussed a thousand times over Church history. So if there are any commentaries on this in Church Tradition, I'd be very interested.

RESPONSE: Once again, I am unclear as to what precisely you are asking. I assume that you are having a dialogue with a non-believer and are looking for quotes to assist in changing his opinion, but what precisely -- beyond the "change his opinion" -- his opinion is I am unclear, other than that "God is proposing to deprive man of eternal life." In this regard, I know of no references in the Fathers that would state that "God proposes to deprive man of eternal life." In the bigger picture, this assertion is quite odd, since Scripture reads that "whoever believes in Him will have eternal life." Christ came into the world, not to deprive man of eternal life, but to grant eternal life to mankind.

These kinds of discussions are quite difficult via e-mail. As questions arise, there is no opportunity via e-mail to ask for clarification, and there are several points that you make for which I would need clarification.

In any instance, I hope the following passages are of some help. In them, you will see that the term "tree of life" in no way implies the conscious withholding of eternal life from mankind. In fact, the opening line of the first quote -- "The tree of life represents the Holy Spirit dwelling in the hearts of the faithful..." would seem to state quite the opposite.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

NIKETAS STIFATOS [c AD 1000-1090]
The tree of life represents the Holy Spirit dwelling in the hearts of the faithful, as St. Paul says" 'Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?' (1 Cor. 6:19). The tree of knowledge of good and evil represents our senses which produce contrasting fruits: pleasure and pain. Each of these is divided again into two: there is pleasure arising from natural needs, and there is pleasure resulting from debauchery; then there is pain coming as a consequence of struggle and spiriual burdens. The fruits are good if we pluck them, keeping close to nature at the right season. God has planted this tree in our hearts, this sense of good and evil, for a good purpose: to test us, to make trial of our obedience, to give us the opportunity to live in accordance with nature or not, as we choose, and to follow what leads to perfection or what leads to imperfection.

ST. EPHREM THE SYRIAN
Had the serpent been rejected, along with sin, they would have eaten of the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge would no longer have been withheld from them. From the latter they would have acquired infallible knowledge, while from the former they would have received immortal life. They would have acquired divinity in humanity. And had they thus acquired infallible knowledge and immortal ife, they would have done so in this body.

With the blade of the sword of the cherub was the path to the Tree of Life shut off, but to the Peoples the Lord of that Tree has given Himself as food.
Whereas Eden's other trees were provided for the former Adam to eat, for us the very Planter of the Garden has become the food for our souls.
Whereas we had left that Garden along with Adam when he left it behind now that the sword has been removed by the lance we may return there.

Again we would say `If Adam died because of sin, He Who removed sin had to take away death too.' But just as Adam was told `The day you eat of the forbidden tree, you shall die,' but in fact he did not die; but rather he received a pledge of his death in the form of being stripped naked of the gory and his expulsion from Paradise, after which he was daily pondering on death. It is exactly the same with life in Christ: we have eaten His Body in place of the fruit of the Tree, and His altar has taken the place of the Garden of Eden for us; the curse has been washed away by His innocent blood, and in the hope of resurrection we await the life that is to come, and indeed we already walk in the new life, in that we already have a pledge of it.

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS
God planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge was for trial, and proof, and exercise of man's obedience and disobedience: and hence it was named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or else it was because to those who partook of it was given power to know their own nature. Now this is a good thing for those who are mature, but an evil thing for the immature and those whose appetites are too strong.

ST. THEODORE THE STUDITE
Long ago, death took charge of the world through our ancestor Eve; but now it has engaged in combat with her blessed daughter and been beaten away, conquered by the very source from whom it had received its power. Let the race of women rejoice, then, for it has received glory in place of shame! Let Eve be gald, for she is under a curse no more, having produced in Mary a child of blessing. Let the whole of creation jump for joy, drinking the mystical flood of incorruption from that virgin spring and putting an end to its mortal thirst. These are the things we celebrate today, this is the subject of our solemn song: Mary provides it for us -- the root of Jesse who bore the flower Christ; the rod of Aaron with its sacred bud; the spiritual Paradise containing the tree of life; the meadow alive with the fragrance of virginity; the blooming vine, cultivated by God, which became the ripe grape flowing the life; the high, exalted cherubim-throne of the universal king; the home full of the glory of the Lord; the sacred veil of Christ; the bright land of sunrise. She has fallen asleep in peace and righteousness -- fallen asleep, I say, but she is not dead! She has passed on from us, yet she does not cease to protect her people.

ST. SIMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN
O Paradise planted anew by Christ our God! O new mystery and dreadful wonder! There, Adam and Eve lived avowedly among trees which were physical and visible. Both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were different from each other. But here, the new Adam becomes all things at once for those who believe, both food and a knowledge which does not lead to death nor banish us from the tree of life, but rather which teaches us with what words the serpent out instead to have been answered: `Get behind me, Satan!' He said, together with the rest. Nor is this all, but that knowledge leads us to the Life which, again, is He Himself.

O Paradise planted anew by Christ our God! O new mystery and dreadful wonders! There, Adam and Eve lived avowedly among trees which were physical and visible. Both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were different from each other. But here, the new Adam becomes all things at once for those who believe, both food and a knowledge which does not lead to death nor banish us from the tree of life, but rather which teaches us with what words the serpent ought instead to have been answered: `Get behind me, Satan!' He said (Mt.4:10ff*.), together with the rest. Nor is this all, but that knowledge leads us to the Life which, again, is He Himself.

-- end --

These answers may not satisfy you. Then dig deeper. There's more, as Fr John indicated. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame; you do not thereby disprove the Orthodox interpretation.

I think a related problem is when you have not been hooked into the Tradition, where the general sense of these interpretations is delivered all the time - thus, even a fairly ignorant believer would know much of this, simply because he was steeped in the Liturgy, the iconography, and so on. Whereas you, coming in from the outside, don't have that to help you. Even our stories help us. Just thinking of "The Magician's Nephew" from the Chronicles of Narnia, where this stuff is illustrated - it was never the eating of fruit that itself brought death - it was disobedience, to do something that they weren't ready for, something any parent can understand, thinking about the warnings not to give honey to newborn babies...

So a context-free reading (without a hermeneutic connected to the tradition which produced that text) produces confusion; referring to the Tradition brings clarity. You could try to insist that we take that text by itself with no reference to Tradition, but that makes no sense to us. We don't isolate statements in a vacuum.

Anyway, here are your ducks. Eat them or throw them away, but I have delivered them.

Kevin's Watch

Where did I go wrong!!!!