theology and echology

7/29/2019 Theology and Echology

1/32

JournalforInterdisciplinaryResearchonReligionandScience,No.2,January2008

TheologyandEcology.HermeneuticalInsigtsfor a

ChristianEcoTheology

Rev.GheorghePOPA**"Al.I.Cuza"University,DumitruStniloaeFacultyofOrthodoxTheology,

CloscaStreet,No. 9,700066,Iasi,RomaniaEmailAddress:[email protected]

Abstract

Nature has always longed for salvation,nowadaysmore thanever,asman has abusedNature,separated it fromGod and used it for his own selfishpurposes. It isatragic factthat thisautonomyhas notcontributed inanyway to the freedomofman,but toslavery, to his submission to nature and the laws ofnecessity. Consequently, general belief defines ourtime as dominated by a deep spiritual crisis whichdistorts the relationship between man and theenvironment.

Weconsiderthatreestablishing patristic thought basedonaChristocentricvisionofCreationcouldbeessential for the understanding and resolution of thepresent stateofcrisis.Thisvisiondoubles the faithofseveralcontemporaryhumanistsinrestoringthesenseof logos or of history in Christ for our history,meanttogivetranscendentfreedomtohumanfreedomwhereall Creationcouldrest.Therefore,inthepresentarticle I would like to outline a few hermeneutical

insightsforapossibledialoguebetweencontemporaryecologyand Christiantheology.

I.Preliminaries It is well known that, even from 1961, numerous

theologiansactively involved in theecumenicalmovementstarted toask themselvesquestionsaboutnature,science,technology and the impactof the technological societyon

humandignity.The third World Conference on Church and Society

(1966)discussed the issueofprovidingananswer for the

97
http://../Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/RAH0SQR1/[email protected]://../Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/RAH0SQR1/[email protected]://../Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/RAH0SQR1/[email protected]


2/32

POPA TheologyandEcology.HermeneuticalInsigtsforaChristianEcoTheology

social technological revolutions that had determined newstructures of spiritual experience. The fourth Conference,

held in Uppsala in 1968 broadened the same problemsdebatedonatGenevain1966.The United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment (Stockholm, 1972) shared the increasingconcernofChurchesfor ecology1.

Finally, the seventhAssembly of theWorld Council ofChurches2, meeting in Canberra was centered onrediscovering an integrativevisionof creation thatwoulddetermine a new attitude of the modern man towardsenvironment.

These strong concerns were born because Naturelonged for salvation, nowadaysmore than ever, asman had abusedNature, separated it fromGod and used it for his own selfish purposes. It is a tragic fact that thisautonomyhasnotcontributedinanyway tothefreedomofman, but to slavery, to his submission to nature and the lawsofnecessity.Consequently,generalbeliefdefinesour

timeasdominatedbyadeepspiritualcrisiswhichdistortstherelationshipbetweenmanand the environment.We consider that reestablishing patristic thought

based on a Christocentric vision of Creation could beessential for the understanding and resolution of thepresent state of crisis. This vision doubles the faith ofseveral contemporaryhumanists in restoring the senseoflogos or of history in Christ for our history,meant togive transcendent freedom to human freedom where allCreation could rest. Therefore, in the present article Iwould like to outline a few hermeneutical insights for apossible dialogue between contemporary ecology and Christiantheology.

1Paix et justicepour la creation entire. Intgralitdes textes et

documentsofficiels ditspar laConfrencedesEglises europenneset le Conseil des Confrences Episcopales Europennes, avec une introduction deM. Jean Fischer et deMgr. Ivo Frer, Paris, 1989, p. 264.

2HeldinFebruary720, 1991.

98


3/32


II.TheTheologicalVocationofCreation

ThewholepatristictheologystatesthatGodtheFathercreates the world throughHis Son in the HolySpirit3.The worldorthecosmosisontologicallybasedonGod,notonitself. The world does not exist since the beginning, incoeternitywith God; on the contrary, it is created out ofnothing (ex nihilo) as a proof of God the Trinity in hiscreative loveand freedom.Hencetheworldbearsthe iconofTrinityinits innerself,itsstructureisaTrinitarianand

acommunitarianone.In order to transfer the aforementioned theologicalstatementtoconceptuallanguage,theChurchFathersusedtwoconcepts from theGospelAccording toSaint Johnandthe Letters of Saint Apostle Paul, i.e. and which have been translated in Romanian by Cuvnt(Word)and Duh(Spirit).

Saint Irenaeus considers the Word (Logos) and theSpirit as the hands of God the Father that brought theworld to being from nonbeing. Thus the world isanimatedandspiritual.Inotherwords,theworldhasalogical rational structurewith amessage for man and adivinefinality.

The logical structure of our world has been acceptedeven by the Ancient philosophers. For instance, the Stoicphilosophers considered to be a cosmologicalprinciple,synonymouswiththehumanbeing()4.

The concept of is also employed by Philo ofAlexandria,aJewishphilosopherwhostatedthattheworldhadbeencreatedbyGods .HisconceptiondrawsonthetextofGenesis inordertoestablisha linkbetweenthe Greekcosmologyand the one presentintheOld Testament.

3St. Athanasius, v v v (Letter III, S.P.G., XXVI, 632 B.C.), apud Printele Galeriu,

Jertf i rscumprare [Father Galeriu, Sacrifice and Deliverance], AnastasiaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1991,p.52. 4 Deacon Prof. Dr. Nicolae Balca, Istoria filosofiei antice [The

Historyof AncientPhilosophy], IBMBORPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1982,p.246.

99


4/32


It was only natural for the Christian theologians tomake use of this concept, in their turn, both to bring

arguments for the teachings of the Holy Trinity and itsrelationshipwiththecreatedworld.The first scholars engaged in this argumentative path

were the Christian apologists living in the centuries 13AD.However,theirpurposewas nottoclarifythepreceptsontheHolyTrinity,buttobringargumentsfortherelationofequivalencebetweenGod and Truthbeforethe Greeksa very perilous enterprise, indeed. The starting point oftheir reflection corresponds to the PrologueofThe Gospel

according toSaintJohn inwhich JesusChristourSavior isidentified with Gods eternal Logos and all things weremade by him (John, 1, 3). If Christ is Logos, he is alsoTruth,accordingtotheChristianapologists.

By identifying Christ with Truth because he is theLogos, the apologists did not succeed in completelysurmounting thestaticontologyof the Greeks.Such is the case of Saint Justin Martyr who defines God as supreme

Truth: That which always stays the same, and isdiscernibletothemindalone()5.Thus, the divine truth is an immovable object in the

Platonist sense of the word, being related to the worldthroughthemindorthe humanspirit()6.

5SaintJustintheMartyrandPhilosopher,DialogulcuiudeulTrifon,

nApologei de limb greac [Dialogue with Trypho, aJew in GreekApologists], IBMBORPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1980,p.9596. Seehttp://www.piney.com/FathJustinDiaTrypho.html#P4044_787343 for the Englishversionofthe dialogue.

6SaintJustinagreeswithPlatonwhenitcomestothemind theminds eye is of such a nature, and has been given for this end,thatwemay see thatveryBeingwhen themind ispure itself,who isthe causeof all discernedby themind,havingno colour,no form,nogreatnessnothing, indeed,which thebodily eye looks upon; but It is something of this sort, he goes on to say, that is beyond all essence,

unutterableand inexplicable,butalonehonourable and good, comingsuddenly into soulswelldispositioned,on accountof their affinity toand desire of seeingHim. Cf. Sfntul IustinMartirul i Filosoful, op. cit., p. 96 [Saint Justin the Martyr and Philosopher, Ibidem for theEnglishtranslation].

100
http://www.piney.com/FathJustinDiaTrypho.html#P4044_787343http://www.piney.com/FathJustinDiaTrypho.html#P4044_787343


5/32


This relationshipbetweenGod and theworld leadsusto theunderstandingof theconceptof belonging toHim. There is an ontological connection ()between and human spirit, therefore, according toSaintJustin,Christas becomesthelinkbetweenGodandtheworld,betweenGodand humanspirit.

It is important to notice that the distinction betweenthedivine and thehuman isnot clearlymade,either in Saint Justinsworks or in the ones of the other

Logos theologians such as SaintClement ofAlexandria orOrigen as they continued to pay tribute to philosophy.However, they have shown theway to Christian theologyforthephilosophersto followbuttheycouldnotelucidatewellenoughtherelationshipbetweenGodandcreation.Asa result, their ideas indirectly led to the emergence of aseries of heretical deviations, both theological and inrelationwithspirituallife.Theirideaswerecorrectedlaterby other Church Fathers, especially Saint Athanasius the Greatand SaintMaximusthe Confessor.

SaintAthanasius threw light on the Logos theology inits intellectualism that identifiedGod, the incarnateLogoswith Gods Son the Father, i.e. the second person of the HolyTrinity.

ThisrelationofequivalencebetweenChristtheLogoswith Gods Son the Father was possible due to anothertheological movement, not epistemologically based or

intellectually relating God with humanity, but whichemphasized an existential relationship with Christ, the LogosofincarnateGod asin himwaslife(John1,4).

Identifying with life was unacceptable for the Ancientphilosophywhichconsidered that lifewas avalueadded to being and not the being itself7. Therefore, thedefinition of as life belongs to the Holy Scripture.Saint Irenaeus stated that the treeof life in theGardenof

7Aristotle,Deanima,402 ab;431b;apudIoannisZizioulas,Fiinaeclesial [The Ecclesial Being], The Byzantine Publishing House,Bucharest,1996,p.77.

101


6/32


Eden represented Christ the Logos and if Adam hadtastedoneofitsapples,hewouldhavebecomeimmortal8.

For Saint Irenaeus, Christ the Logos is not anepistemologicalprinciplethatexplainsthe mysteriesoftheuniverse, but a second person of the Holy Trinity whocreated theworldand brought the promiseofeternity for it.

It is important to mention that this belief of SaintIrenaeus was not intellectual, but rather developed fromtheEucharisticepiclesisofChurchwhichdoesnotseparatetheworkofChrist the Logos from the workof theHolySpirit. The Book ofGenesis clearly expresses the identitybetweenthe workofLogosandoftheHolySpiritintheactof creation that spreads the love ofGod the Father: AndGod blessedthe seventhday,and sanctifiedit (Gen.2,3).

Theblessingof the world is the workof ,and itssanctification belongs to the Holy Spirit, yet the twoactionsarenotseparated,butunitedinawholeasworksofGod the Trinity.ThisfactisalsounderlinedbyOrigen:

TheHolyTrinityisthebeginningofallbeings9

.Consequently, all beings, i.e. the creation in its wholeoriginateinGod theTrinity.

Nonetheless, theology distinguishes between theconceptsofbeginningandorigin.While the former isonlytemporal,astime itselfbeginswiththecreation, the latteriseternal.

TheHolyTrinityisoriginandbeginningofthecreationat the same time: it is origin because the logicalparadigms of the entire creation in God exist sinceforever, on the one hand and beginning as the sameparadigmsbecame plastifiedreasonsdue to thecreativewilloftheHolyTrinity10.

8Saint Irenaeus,Adversushaeresis,5,20, 2;apudHenrideLubac,Catholicisme,Cerf,Paris,1952,p.150.

9

Origen, InPsalmum,XVII,16P.G.,XII,1229B;apud,Fr.Galeriu,ibidem,p.51. 10The expression plastified reasonsbelongs to the terminology

ofRev.Prof.Dr.DumitruStniloaeand defines the logical structureand the Christological vocation of the creation in its whole. See

102


7/32


TheHolyTrinitydoesnotonlystandfor theoriginandthebeginningofthe creation,butalso for its end,the finalrestaspresented inGenesiswhenGodisresting inHiscreationand thecreation,inits turn,isrestinginGod.

God Almighty the transcendent is now to be felt bymeans of the uncreated energies and He becomes thecenter or the heart of the creation. Therefore, in its innerself,the entirecreation isorientedtowardsthe GodTrinitycommunion.

Saint Dionysius the PseudoAreopagite captured thistheological vocationof the creation in its whole: TowardsGodallbeings turnand desireHim.The oneswithwisdom ()and reason()callHimthroughknowledge,whilstthesensiblebeings through their sensibility; the creatures lacking sensibilitycall Him through their life instincts and the inanimate ones thatpossess only their being call Him through their attitude ofparticipation toallbeing() Lightbrings togetherand attractsallbeings with sight (wisdom) and all that move, all in light and warmedby light,togetherwiththeonesexistingonlyowingtothe rays of light. All beings want it, either to see(know), move orreceive lightand warmthby its rays,ortocontinuetheirexistenceinlight11.

Asnotedabove,SaintDionysiusthe PseudoAreopagiteregards creation as a Church and the movement of thiscreation towardsGod asa cosmic liturgy thatcomprisesallbeings.

Therefore,thecreationdoeshaveatheologicalvocation

but the way in which it is put into practice is nothighlighted well enough by Saint Dionysius. It was SaintMaximus the Confessor who broadened Saint Dionysiustheological reflections and he was considered by manytheologians tobe theauthenticFatherofEastern theologyasheshowedhow the theologicalvocationofcreationwas fulfilledtrulyandcompletelyinChrist.

Teologia dogmatic ortodox (OrthodoxDogmatic Theology), vol. I, p. 369.11 Dionysius the PseudoAreopagite, On the Divine Names,

translated in Romanian by Rev. Cicerone Iordchescu and TheofilSimensky,Iai,1936,p.30.

103


8/32


According to SaintMaximus the Confessor, Christ, the incarnate Logos is the centre and the sense of the entire

creation, its final aim for which it completed the journeyfrom nonbeing to being. This is the greatest and mostconcealedmysteryofall,writesSaintMaximus, the joyfulaimand in its virtueofwhichallhavebeencreated; this is the divinegoalestablishedbefore the beginningofall things,and bydefining itwesay it istheultimateaimthoughtbeforetimeand forwhichallexist,whilst for itnothingwas made.Contemplatingthis finalaim,Godbought to life the beingsofcreatures () tobeannouncedbyGodsexistingWord()thatbecamehuman.SoHerevealed,ifallowed to call in thisway, the eternal deep of fatherly goodness

and showed inHim the end forwhich the creatureswere offeredthe beginning of existence. As for Christ, or for the Mystery ofChrist, theyreceivedallcenturies from thebeginningofexistencetotheirend inChrist12.

Itsisobviousthatstartingwiththistext,SaintMaximusthe Confessor adjusted the intellectual conception ofcreation sustained by Origin, replacing it with aChristocentricvisiondrawnonthe incarnationofLogos.

The act of incarnation is explained by the existingrelationshipbetweenthelogicalstructureofcreationandthedivinehypostaticLogosbecause inHim the reasonsofthecreatedbeingssubsistevenbefore timeand in theerameant for creation he gave birth to the seen and the unseenfromnothingasOnewho madeall inreasonand wisdom13.

The divine reasons () of creation mentioned bySaintMaximusarenotpreexistentspiritsas the ones intheOrigenistdoctrine,but thoughtsor paradigms that

Godused tocreate theworldaccording tohis willandhisuncreatedenergies.

This adjustment brought to theOriginistdoctrinewas possibleduetothechoiceofSaintMaximustheConfessor,whenestablishinghistheologicalreflection,for theBiblicaldistinctionbetweencreatedand uncreated,ratherthanthe

12

Saint Maximus the Confessor, Rspunsuri ctre Talasie (, Questions to Thalassius), translated in Romanian by Rev. Prof Dr. DumitruStniloae,Filocalia,Sibiu,1948,vol III,p.327.

13Idem,Ambigua,translatedinRomanianbyRev.ProfDr. DumitruStniloae,Bucharest,1980.

104


9/32


duality intelligiblesensible on which the entire Platonistphilosophyrests.

God the Trinity is uncreated and immortal; on thecontrary,His creationappeared in timewithavocation tofulfill: take part in the eternal communion of the HolyTrinity. According to Saint Maximus, this task had to becarried out byAdam, the last element of the creation, aculminationof it as conscious and freebeing, responsiblefor thecreationbeforeGod theTrinity.

III. Man: Icon of God on Earth and ConsciousHypostasisofCreation

The ideaof icon ()ofGod forms thenucleusofthe Old Testament anthropology. Still, Genesis does notclearlyestablishthe characterofthe iconofGod whichwas transferredonly to the humanbeing,mentioningonly thefact thatmanwas created inadifferentway than therestof thecreationbymeansofGods special intervention.Hetookdustof thegroundwithhishands(LogosandSpirit),modelledhim afterHis imageand breathedintohis nostrilsthebreathoflife;and manbecamealivingsoul(Gen.2,7).

SaintGregoryofNazianzusgiveshis own interpretationfor the instance of Genesis described above: The Word(Logos) of Godmodelled uswith his immortal hands, bytakingdustfromthenewlycreatedEarth,and breathedthebreath of life upon us: the spirit born is a part of the

unseendivinity.Thus,fromdustand spirit,manwas giventhe imageofGod that liesboth inbodyandsoulandrulesover the spiritual nature. This is precisely why in myrelation todust, I am submitted tomy lifeonEarth and Ialsobearinsidemethe wistfulnessoflifetocome14.

An overview of the way in which the other ChurchFathers interpreted the notionof iconor imageofGod

14PoemataDogmatica,VII,Despresuflet[OntheSoul],7075, P.G.,t. 37, col. 4521; see also Olivier Clment, ntrebri asupra omului[QuestionsaboutMan],AlbaIulia,1997,p.44.

105


10/32


would reveal different connotations that complete one anotherwithoutrevealingthemysteryofhumanperson.

SomeChurchFathershave seenGods reflecting imageinmanduetohis imperialdignity,i.e.hisabilitytoreignoverthesensiblecreationandcontrolhisownbody,othersbelieved that hiswisdom () or reason () is the image of God, while others attributed to him the threefacultiesof the soul:mind,will and feelingorhis specificfreedom()thatjustifieshisacts.

Apartfromthediversityofopinionsalreadypresented,two essentialthingsmustbepointedout:firstly,manisanindefinite being because it bears the image of theindefinite One; secondly, the Church Fathers provedfreedomof thoughtat thehighest creativeand innovativelevelwithoutcontradictingtheRevelation.Theydidnottryto marginalize man, but unmarginalize him in thehorizon of Gods vocation. The Church Fathers did notdepart from the image of God inman in order to form amisconception about God derived from a psychological

analogy.Onthecontrary,theyfollowedthe Revelationandwhat it says about God so as to find in man thecorrespondentofthe divineimagethatwas giventohim.

By adopting this theological method, the ChurchFatherssucceeded inovercoming thedilemmasofAncientanthropology and the dualism between body () and spirit()orsoul()inparticular.Theyespeciallyunderlined the positive content of the image, i.e. thecommunionwithGod inwhichhumannaturebothbodyandsoulaltogether lies inthe momentofcreation intheLogosand SpiritofGod, that is in the Son ofGodand the HolySpiritrespectively.

Due to a proper interpretation of the Biblicalanthropology, a series of Church Fathers such as SaintIrenaeusofLyon,SaintGregoryofNyssaorSaintGregoryPalamasclearlyemphasizedthatnotonlythe soul,butalsothe human body shares the quality of being the icon of

God.SaintGregoryPalamaswritesthatthenameofGod isnot given to the soul or the body separately, but to both

106


11/32


altogether as theyhave been created as one in similitudewiththeimageofGod15.

Thereare somegeneral aspects related to the imageofGod inman thatconcerndirectly the presentsubjectofdebate,thereforesomeclearspecificationsmustbemade.

The first chapter of Genesis, line 27 reads: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God hecreatedhim;maleand femalehecreatedthem.

An interpretation of this verse from the Trinitarian

perspectivehighlightedabovewouldleadtotheconclusionthat thenotionofimageoricondoesnotstand for thesexualpolarityofhumannature,but to thequalityofmanas person (), comprising the entire humannature in its ontological content, either as man or aswoman.

The man as person does not take part in the humannature as the Persons of the Trinity are not parts of theDivinityintheirturn.Manisthepersonofnature;thenceheisfreebeforeanydeterminismornaturalnecessity.

ThenotionofmanAdamwhichappears in the textofGenesis, as quoted above, can also be interpreted as ageneral notion encompassing the entire humanity, theUniversalMan that incorporates both the masculine andthe feminineprinciple.This isone interpretationprovidedby SaintGregoryofNyssawho was definitely inspiredbySaintPaulsLetters:the namegiventotheman created(Adam)

isnot theparticular,but thegeneralname: thusweare led by theemploymentof thegeneralnameofour nature tosome suchviewas thisthat in theDivine foreknowledgeand powerallhumanityis included in the firstcreation() For the image isnot inpartofournature,nor is the grace inany oneof the things found in thatnature,butthispowerextendsequallytoalltherace:and asignofthis isthatmind is implantedalike inall: forallhavethepowerofunderstanding and deliberating, and ofall elsewherebytheDivinenature finds its image in thatwhichwas madeaccording to it: theman thatwas manifestedat the firstcreationof the world,and he

15 Prosopeiae, P.G., t. 150, col. 1361; apud VI. Lossky, ThologiemystiquedelglisedOrient,Aubier,1944.

107


12/32


that shallbeafter theconsummation ofall,are alike: theyequallybear in themselves theDivine image.()Our wholenature,then,extending from the first to the last, is, so to say, one image of

HimWho is16.As quoted above, there is an ontological unity of the

humanity in its whole, but it is precisely this unity thatdoesnotexclude the personspluralityordoesnothavealogicalpriority regarding it, in thesameway inwhich the personspluralitymustnotdivideits ontologicalunity.

From this point of view, the identity of being and thepersonalalterationformawayofexistencetobesharedby

bothGod and man.The onlydistinctive feature lies in the eternalexistenceofGodasopposedtomanslifewhichisagiftofGod whoblessedthe humanexistencewiththeethosofTrinitariancommunion17intheactofcreation.

Besides the ontologicalunityof the entirehumanrace,thefirstchapterofGenesisillustratesthe ontologicalunitybetweenman and creation.Thisunitywas alsounderlinedin the Ancient philosophy that considered man to be amicrocosm, a smallworld that bears within itself themacrocosm18,thebigworld.

TheChurchFathersborrowed the ideaof microcosmfrom the Book of Genesis, nevertheless they highlightedthatitwas notthisqualitythatofferedmanthepositioninthecenterofcreation,buthissimilitudetoGodasiconofHis.

Thisspecificfeaturegivesbirthtoanotherrelationshipofmanwithcosmos.Thus,he isnotsolelyagratification

of creation, but its priest and poet altogether with themission to bring the entire sensible creation to completeunitywithGod the Trinity.

16SaintGregoryofNyssa,Desprecreareaomului[On the MakingofMan], 22 P.G. 44, 204205; apudHenri de Lubac, op. cit., p. 330. Seehttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2914.htmfortheEnglishversion.

17

Christos Yannaras, La libert de la Morale, Gnve, Labor etFides,1982,p.14. 18TheStoicphilosophersemphasized the centralpositionofman

inthecosmosasasynthesisofitasthecosmosbecomesthroughman logicalandreasonable.

108
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2914.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2914.htm


13/32


From this perspective, taken by the Church Fathersfromchapter twoofGenesis,creationdoesnotstand forasimple cosmos, i.e. an organized chaos, one of thedemiurges works, but a Church to become19, that is aplacewhereman is to celebrate the Liturgy ofGod theTrinity with the other beings. Precisely for this reasonGenesisadvocatesthatAdamhas beeninvitedtonameallbeings, i.e. to discover their logos and their dynamicorientationtowardsthe supremeLogos.

The gathering of beings created by God before Adam(Gen. 2, 1920) equals his investment with a sacerdotalvocation. In other words, the ontological Doxology ofbeingsmustbecomeaconsciousone inthepersonofman.

The doxological and ecclesial dimension of creation,fulfilledconsciouslyinmanand ontologicallyrelatedtothe cosmicnature,canbeclearlydistinguishedfromthewayinwhich Genesis presents the relationship between natureandperson.

Not only does the cosmic nature have an ecclesialvocation, but the human nature itself also, because it isontologicallyrelatedtothecosmicnaturewhichappearsinGenesisaschurchand thehumanpersonasits priest.

The human couple, man (i in Hebrew) and woman(ia) form a singlebody (Gen.2,23), i.e.a singlenaturethat is separated in two persons. Man is the one whoadmitsthisidentityofnatureandpersonalalterity:This is

now bone ofmy bones, and flesh ofmy flesh: she shall be calledWoman (ia inHebrew), because she was taken out ofMan (i)(Gen.2,18).

The fact that, inhis dialoguewithwoman,manprovesto be the leader, must be understood in an ecclesial,Christological and theological sense which could berendered as follows: God the Trinity creates the worldoutof loveand the worldgiveshim love forananswer, in

19 Rev. Prof.Dr.Dumitru Stniloae, Spiritualitate i comuniune n Liturghia Ortodox [Spirituality and communion in the OrthodoxLiturgy],Craiova,1986,p.19.

109


14/32


its turn; Christ gives birth to the Church, through His crucified Love and the Church gives Him love for an

answer; man has to love his woman as much as ChristlovedtheChurchand thewomanmustgivehim loveforananswer.

Therefore, the lines in Genesis do not express asubordinate relationship of woman to man; on thecontrary, they establish a divine order in the humancommunity through which the communitarian life of theHolyTrinityreveals itself tohumanityand fromhumanityto the entire creation. In fact, the text overtly states thatGod presented thewoman tohermanputtingher in frontofhim (Iwillmakehim ahelpmeet forhim,eterkenegdo)(Gen.2,18).

In Hebrew, the preposition eter kenegdo does notexpress a subordinate relationship, as manyinterpretations in the historyofculturehaveshown,butaspecialworkofGodmeantfor the singlesad man20.

Moreover, this preposition refers to the reality of an

interpersonal dialogue, a face to face one and not asimple physical and objective recognition of the other. Inthecentreofthisdialogueliesthevocationofnamingthecreation,i.e.thepoeticalandsacerdotalvocationofhumanperson.

This poetical and sacerdotal vocation was especiallyemphasized by Saint Maximus the Confessor in the firstseven chapters of his Mystagogy. The work is closelyrelated to the ontological relation between man andcreationand tothefivepolaritiesthatitcomprises:

1. the distinction between Gods creation and His uncreatedenergies;

2. the distinction, within creation, between the intelligiblenatureand thesensibleone;

3. the distinction between sky and Earth within thesensiblenature;

20 Francine Carrilo Cvetbert, Une seule chaire: Limaginaire lpreuvedu rel.InBulletinduCentreProtestantdEtudes,Gnve,nr. 1., fvrier,1983,p.2526.

110


15/32


4. the distinction,onEarth,betweenParadiseand the restofthe Earth;

5. the distinction, in Paradise, between man and woman.

Starting from these distinctions, Saint Maximus the Confessor articulates the original vocation of man tooverpass any aggressive dualism existing between the aforementionedcategories inordertosharethe divine lifeof the Holy Trinity and turn the entire cosmos in a

TrinitarianbasedChurch, ifwewere toemployOrigensterminology21.Yet, thisvocation,as Iwillprove in the followingparts

ofmy study, did not succeed because of the fall ofmaninto sin, a failure which led both to the historical and existential exile of man, and the decadence of the entirecreation.

IV.ManinExileandthe DecayofCreation

a. Man:centerofallthings?In order to understand the historical and existential

exileofman, the ChurchFathersused the symbolic imageof universalman, the first Adamwho virtually containedtheentirehumancondition.

The inspired text of the Holy Scripture shows us howman had to be subjected to the exercise of his personal

freedomsoas to completehis vocationofpoetand priestof creation. This exercisewas meant to take place in thehorizonof calling,of communionwithGod and the wholecreation.

Callingand libertyare,according toSaintMaximus the Confessor,the twowingsofman22whichhelphim fulfill

21

Fr. Galeriu, ibidem, p. 51; see also VI. Lossky, Introducere n TeologiaOrtodox [OrthodoxTheology:An introduction], translated in Romanian by Lidia and Remus Rus, Enciclopedica Publishing House,Bucharest,1993,p.101.

22Cf.PaulEvdokimov,LOrthodoxie,Paris,1965,p.102.

111


16/32


hisvocation.However,calling isnever to replace freedombecauseitrepresentsthe mediumthatsecretlyhostsGods

calling and the answer of man. Consequently, in theexerciseofAdamicfreedom,theChurchFathersdistinguishtwomainsteps: the freedomofchoice,ahypostasisof the personaselementofnatureand thefreedominTruththatariseson the way,every timegood ischosen in thevirtueofthesimilitudewithGod.

So thereal freedomofman lies in thehorizonofGodscalling, yetmanhas to accept freely the communionwithHim. Inotherwords,Godcreateda freeman soas tocallhim todeification, tohaveadivinehumancondition.Thiscalling isbasedona freeanswer fromthepartofman() Adamwas submittedtothe exerciseoffreedominordertoobtainaconsciouslove.Thus,mancannottrulyloveGod ifhecanalsorefuseHim23.

Inthesymbolic languageofGenesis,freewill,calledbySaintAugustinelibertasminor24,isaveryimportantpartof mans condition as only empowered by it, man can

defend himself against constraints and proclaim his personal identity. In Genesis, it is this freedom that ledman to sin, i.e. to the separation from God, to exile and death. In Blaise Pascals terms, the Adamic man was nothing in relation to the infinite, all in relation tonothing, a mean between nothing and everything,betweenbeingandnonbeinginhis righttofreewill.

In Genesis, this possibility of choice is expressed in aconcreteintuitive language impersonated by the tree ofknowledgeofgoodandevil(Gen.2,9).

The Church Fathers provided different interpretationsfor this tree from the midst of the Garden of Eden.Interesting for our debate is the interpretation given bySaint Maximus the Confessor in his book, Questions toThalassius:ifonearguedthatthe treeofknowledgeofgoodand evilrepresentedthecreationofwhatcouldbeseen,one wouldnot

23OlivierClement,Questionssurlhomme,Paris,1965,p.45. 24 De libero arbitro, 1, III, C. XIX; P.L. t. XXXII, col. 1297; apud

ConstantinPavel,Problemaruluila FericitulAugustin[TheProblemofEvilinSaintAugustinesWorks],Bucharest,1937,p.58.

112


17/32


befar fromthe truth();creatingwhatcouldbeseenhad itsown

ecclesialreasonsofbringing foodto the mindandgivinganaturalpower to please the senses, on the one hand and corrupting the mind, on the other hand. Thus, spiritual contemplation of whatcouldbeseenleadstothe knowledgeofgood,whetherthephysicalone results in sin and oblivion of the divine. Hence God forbadephysicalcontemplation,delaying ittoman asbefore, inthetrulyawarenessofhis causethroughcommunionwithitincallingand bymeans of this communion, man had to exchange his givenimmortality for righteousness and immovability through calling untilhebecameworthyofappreciating itwithouthurtinghimselfin freedomwith God due to sublimation of his spirit and sensesthroughdeification25.

Thus, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor, the treeofknowledgeofgoodand evilstands for thesensibleworldinwhichwelive.AssumedinGodsSpirit,itleadsusto the knowledge of good; on the contrary, accepted onlyfromapsychologicalorbiologicalperspective, it inducesafalseknowledgethatmixesgoodwithevil.

SaintMaximusprovides thissymbolic interpretation inorder toshed lightonmanspossibilityofchoicebetweenthe two existential paths: communion with God which istheequivalentof lifeand separation fromGod thatbringsdeath.Accordingly, thebiblical termsof good and evilare not just moral, social or legal categories, but alsoontologicalandexistentialones.

ThetreeofknowledgeofgoodandevilliesinthecenterofParadise,i.e.inthe centerofhumanexistence.Goodhaseternal lifeashisonlygoal, that is life incommunionwithChrist, while Evil, according to Saint Maximus theConfessor,doesnothaveanontologicalstatusinexistence.However,onaccountof the failureof freedomofchoice, itcan appear as a tragic reality in human life, leading it toseparationand death.

25SaintMaximustheConfessor,QuestionstoThalassius,translatedinRomanianbyRev.ProfDr. DumitruStniloae,Filocalia,vol III,Sibiu,1948,p.12.

113


18/32


AlthoughevildoesnothaveeitheranontologicalstatusdeliveredbyGod,orthecommandtorefrainfromthetree

ofknowledgeofgoodorevil, the issue isnot centeredonthe act of knowledge itself, because as we have alreadyseen, Adam was called to name all beings, i.e. to getacquaintedtotheminthedivinesense.

Tempted by a Luciferian knowledge, Adam got the wrong ideaaboutGod.Hebelieved thatGod isselfsufficientasanindependent,autonomousbeingand, inorder tobecome likeGod,hedisobeyedHimand fellintosin.ButwhenGodrevealedhimself,ithappened in love().Believingthathewas tobecome likeGod,

Adamwas

totally

moving

from

Himdeepening

himself

in

singlenesswhileGodremainedincommunion26

Therefore,theAdamicsindoesnotconsist intheactofknowledge,butinthewilltoknowand becomeagod,eventhoughwithoutGods calling.Knowledge of good is not asin,but theknowledgeofgoodmixedwith theknowledgeofevilasproductofmansegocentricorientationis.

Man proclaimed himself center of all things, center ofknowledge of good and evil and thus his axiological

consciencebecamecorrupted,Evilwas placedalonggoodand theheartofAdamwas converted intoalaboratory of justiceand injustice27.

Thence God does not restrain man from knowledge,which inthe biblicalsense istobe identifiedwiththe truelife, only its corruption and the corruption of humanexistencebymeansofafalseunderstandingandpracticeoffreedom.

Therestriction inGenesiswas onlyawarningasman was not allowed to eat without Gods blessing, i.e. nothavearelationshipwithathingbeforebeingpreparedfor a proper relationshipwith it. However, contravening thiscommand given by God is determined by the devil, aspiritualbeingthatfreelydisobeyedGod,readsthe BookofGenesis.The devil is the onewho firstbringsdoubt to thesoul of man, rephrasing Gods command by means ofrestrictivelogicsinwhichthe stressfallsonthepart(Yea,

26Rev.Prof.Dr.DumitruStniloaeOrthodoxDogmaticTheology,vol.I,p.12.

27Ibidem,p.16.

114


19/32


hathGod said,Yeshallnoteatofeverytreeofthe gardenGen.3,1) and not on the whole (Of every tree of the garden thoumayest freely eat Gen. 2, 16)28. This holistic visiondeterminesthefallandman istemptedto liveonhisown.He discovers his ego, becomes selfish, falls in lovewithhimselfandforgetsaboutGod and hiskind.

Becoming autonomous in his relationship with God,manhasthe tendencytoputhimselfinthe absolutecenteroftheworld,reduceeverythingtohim,eventheonesofhis

kind.Yet, sooneror later, theworld is to take revengeonman and as an unreal, nonabsolute center, he will besentenced tobear theweightofhisownrebellion throughthemistsofhistory.

b. The corruption of creation and of human

existenceinthestateofexileExile is synonymouswith the fall of human existence

from the orderof spiritualvalues and italso correspondstoaradicalchange inthewayofliving intheworld.TheHolyScriptureemploys the same symbolic terminology inordertoexpressthisreality.

The firstconsequenceofhis fallgivesmana sensationof inner emptiness and a feeling of shame arises in hisconscience.

Thenakedness feltbyAdam in thestateof fall isnotof biological, but of spiritual order. In the external

paintingsofmedievalchurchesinBukovina,one cannoticethatAdamand Evewerenotnaked inParadise,asreadsthetextofGenesis(2,25).Infact,the painterstransferred

28 Christos Yannaras, when interpreting the moment of Godstemptation,specifiesthatThedevilfirsttemptsthewomanbecauseinarchetypalterms,she istheimageofnaturewhilstman impersonateslogos. The distinction between nature and logos, between the

feminine and the masculine principle is not an axiological, but anexistential one;nature is available for the incarnationof a life event,yet itneedstheseedoflogosforthisincarnationtocomeintobeing;see Christos Yannaras, La foi vivante de lEglise, Cerf, Paris, 1989, p.104.

115


20/32


the patristic interpretation to iconography, according towhich inParadise,manwas dressed, i.e.hewas wearing

theblessingGodsthe Trinityinhisbeing29

.The painters,mostof themmonks,grasped the theologicalandecclesialsignificance of the Biblical notion of nakedness andillustratedAdamandEve nakedaftertheirsending forthfrom the Garden of Eden when they have already beendeprived,i.e.undressedbythedivineblessing.

The feeling of shame and fear that accompanies the sensationofontologicalemptinessalsoexpressesastateofcorruption in termsof interpersonalrelations.God who searched man in the cool of the day (Gen. 3, 8) is nolonger feltbyman as theone who loveshim,but theonewhopunisheshim.He isno longer feltasmans intimatefriend,butas anotherbeing,a strangerwho threatensmans individual autonomy by his simple presence.Therefore, Adam stays hidden and it is this hiding thatexpresses thecorruptionofhismoralresponsibility in thestateofsin.He hidwhenGod calleduntohim (Gen3,9)

and when he was discovered he brought arguments foraccusing God: Thewomanwhom thou gavest to bewithme,shegavemeofthe tree,andIdideat(Gen.3,12).

Hence the fall into sin has asprimary consequencesaspiritual crisis (a false representation of God and acorrupted relationship with Him) and a moral one(corruption of freedom and responsibility). The two instances of crisis are followed by a social crisis (theconflictbetweenCainandAbel).

Indeed,inthe stateofsin,freedomnolongerstandsfor giving as it comes to denote egocentrism and possessiveself affirmation. After being sent forth from Paradise,according toGenesis,man (i)didno longerrecognizehiswoman as ia, but he started calling her Eve, i.e. themother of all living (Gen. 3, 20). Sin which objectifiedtheirbodies(andmadethemrealizetheywerenaked)alsoturned the two biological hypostaseis into two individual

29Fr. Galeriu,op.cit.,p.5657.

116


21/32


beingsguidedbyapossessive instinct:thydesireshallbetothyhusband,and heshallruleoverthee(Gen.3,16).

The same instinct of possession will also guide the relationship betweenman and creation by determining aserious ecological crisis, if we were to employ the contemporary terminology. Creation is no longertransparent, a medium of communion for God and manbecausethelatterexiledthe formerfromthecreation,thusopening the way to exile for him and the entire creation.

Man feels lonelyandabandoned in themiddleofahostilecreation: cursed is the ground for thy sake () Thornsalsoand thistlesshallitbringforthtothee(Gen.3,1718).Inotherwords,Earthbecomesaplacethattearsapartandimprisonsand whichGod no longerkeeps inHis blessing.Thence, this isnowmansburyingplace: In the sweatofthy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto theground;for outofitwastthoutaken:for dustthouart,anduntodustshaltthoureturn(Gen.3,19).

Itisobviousthatmanssoulfallspreytodespairduetothis state of crisis, Yet, in order for man not to be tornapart by despair, God interferes once more: Unto Adamalsoand tohiswifedidtheLORDGod makecoatsofskins,and clothedthem(Gen,3,21).

ThecoatsofskinsmentionedinGenesiswerenotpartof mans original outfit. Therefore, there are severalpossible interpretations regarding them. Some scholars

considered that these coats symbolically stood for thebiologicalhypostasisofmanandwerehidinghispersonalalterity, thusorientatingman towardsdeath,asboundaryestablished by God so that mans state of ruin which heentereddidnothavetobeeternal30.

This interpretationofthecoatsofskinscanbe foundintheworksofMethodiusofOlympusand SaintGregoryofNyssa.

30 Panayotis Nellas, Omul, animal ndumnezeit,[Man DeifiedAnimal],DeisisPublishingHouse,Sibiu,1994,p.40.

op.cit.,p.191192.

117


22/32


SaintMethodius believed that Godmade the coats ofskinssoastodressman inmortality forallevil inhim to

diewhenhis bodyopened31

.According to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in the tragichorizon of exile, biological death actually brings a ray ofhopesincethesoularisesfromdeathand isbroughttolifebymeansof it (ifmanhadnotdied abiologicaldeath,hewouldhaveremaineddeadforever)32.

As a result, the horizon of death replaces the tree oflife in the center of existence after the fall into sin and mansautoexile.Manentersaprocessofdecaydue totheempowermentofhissoulbythe seedofseparation,insteadtheoneofcommunion;mandiesbecausehehasbecomeanisolated being in cosmos, fighting for survival; he diesbecausehehasignoredGodsloveandjustice.

The Church Fathers claimed thatGods justicedid nothave only an ethical or legal content, but also anontological one. Justice is synonymous with love and isdisplayed in creation by the order and the harmony it

contains.The fall intosinruined thisorderandharmony, that isthe righteousness of creation, yet the punishment doesnotcomefromGodasalegalactthatcallsfortermination,but fromtherighteousnessofcreation itself.Thiscanbeclearlynoticed inthe dialoguebetweenGod and Cainafterhavingmurdered his brother: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brothers blood crieth unto me from the ground.And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hathopenedhermouth toreceive thybrother'sblood from thy hand;Whenthoutillestthe ground, itshallnothenceforthyield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabondshaltthoubeinthe earth.(Gen.4,1012).

Consequently, it issin thatcorruptstherighteousnessofcreationduetomansdisregardofits orderandbeauty,pursuing only the satisfaction of his pleasureswhichwill

finallyleadhimtopainanddeath.

31Cf. PanayotisNellas,op.cit.,p.191192.32Ibidem,p.292.

118


23/32


Through death, man arrives again at the deeps ofcreationwhere hewas brought to life: his body becomeswater,air,dustand light.Throughdeath,man touches thelimits of cosmos, the light of day one, hence deathbecomes the antidote of death, space of renewal andrestoration for the entire creationwhen anewAdamwillenterourhistory.

The Holy Scripture tells us that starting with the fallintosin,biologicaldeathwas guidedbyGodtoaMessianic

future: And I will put enmity between thee and thewoman,and betweenthyseedandher seed; itshallbruisethyhead,and thoushaltbruisehis heel.(Gen.3,15)

This line has been interpreted by the whole patristictheology from the perspectiveof redemption,of salvationfromdeathmeantforhumanityand ofits restorationinthehorizonofcommunionwithGod33.

V. The End of Human Exile and the Beginning ofInnovationforCreation

Christian theology, in its faithfulness to Revelation,sustains that theendofhumanexileand thebeginningofrestoration for the entire creation in the horizon ofcommunion have taken place at the same time with theincarnationofLogos: God,whydidyou descendonEarthif not for the race of man spread all over its face? ()Proceed to the ascension of yourman now,welcome the

oneyou sentforth,regainyourimage,YourAdam34.Thus, the incarnation of Gods Logos followed by His

crucifixion,deathand resurrectionrestoredcreation in its originalvocation,the theologicalone.Thereinforcementofthesethreemaineventsofhistorycrossesthe limitsofthe

33 The Septuagint mentioned that one of the womans sons willsmashthe serpentshead,yetVulgataattributedthisacttothewoman.

In a way, the two translations are complementary as the formercentersonthefigureofMessiah,whilethelatteronthefigureofVirginMary.

34Sermodeanima,P.G.,XVIII,602;apudFr.Galeriu,op.cit.,p.120.

119


24/32


presentstudy; therefore, Iwillmakereferenceonly to the aspectsthatregardthe relationshipbetweenGod,manand

creation.a. CreationandincarnationThe Church Fathers considered creation and

incarnation as two complementary realities. Creationannounces incarnation whilst the incarnation of creativeLogos completes creation, restoring and orienting ittowards its originalvocation. Thepersonalacceptanceofhumannature in itswholeby the Son ofGod, the eternaland transcendent Logos born from VirginMary, is an actthat recreates and restores the world35, writes acontemporary theologian that remains faithful topatristictheology.

As a result, incarnation does not only stand for ananswer given to Adams rebellion, but also for thebeginning of mans conversion and radical innovationextendedtotheentirecreation36.

Christ, the Son of God incarnated becomes thebeginning and foundation of the creations process ofinnovation, when accepting human nature in His divineHypostasis, altogether eliminating its tendency toautonomy so as to bring instead a complete opening and givingmovementtowardsGod.

Oncemore,itmustbementionedthatwhenthe ChurchFathers discuss human nature, they have in view its dualunity:bodyandsoulasawhole.By theactof incarnation,Christ unitedHimselfwith the body and soul as unifyingand innovating principle. In this sense, Saint Gregory ofNyssawrites:Becomingapartofboththe sensibleand the reasonablepartofhumancomponent,byHis unspeakable

35 Rev. Prof. Dr. Ion Bria, Dicionar de Teologie Ortodox[DictionaryofOrthodoxTheology],p.228

36BorisBobinsky,LeMystrede laTrinit,EditionsduCerf,Paris,1986,p.1112.

120


25/32


power and this union, i.e. body and soul, He will see totheireternalunseparation37.

Therefore,Christontologicallyrepairshumannaturebythe actof incarnation, reestablishing thedivine image inits greatness that leads the soul to transformation inconsentwith its freewill so as to acquire similitudewithGod38.

As alreadymentioned, since the image of god regardsmans entirebeing, its rebuilding and ontological renewal

also concerns his body which becomes a transparenttemple for God and a medium for the Holy Spirit in His manifestation of love and transfiguring power. On thisaccount,SaintAthanasiusthe Greatwrites:Whoissomadas to tell God: break yourself from the body andwewillpray toYou? () Wasnot the leperpraying toGod insideHis body? He recognized Him as God hoping that hisinvocation would cure him and did not consider God ascreature due to the body, i.e. the Logos, Creator of allbeingsorfeeldisguisefor Him,thereforehegotwell39.

Thus, by the incarnation of Logos, the resent againstbody, specific to theAncient thought canno longer find atheological base. According to Saint Gregory of Nyssa,Logos isnot interested in tearingapart the righteous lifedue toadualism,butrathersee to theunificationofbodyand soul in superior harmony when the wall of evilcollapses40.

37SaintGregoryofNyssa,P.G.,44, col.28AB129A;apud Rev.Prof.Dr. DumitruStniloae,OrthodoxDogmaticTheology,vol.3,Bucharest,1978,p.144.

38SaintMaximusthe Confessor,FilocaliaRomneasc,vol.II, Sibiu,1947.

39EpistolactreAdelfie[LettertoAdelphi], P.G.,26, col.10761077,Cf. Rev. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Radu, Mntuirea, a doua creaie a lumii

[Redemption, the second world creation], in Ortodoxia, year XXXVIII(1986)n2,p.56. 40SaintGregoryofNyssa,P.G.,44, 28AB129A;apud Rev.Prof.Dr.

DumitruStniloae,OrthodoxDogmaticTheology,vol.3,Bucharest,1978,p. 455.PP.

121


26/32


Owing to the ontological relationship between humanbody and the rest of the sensible creation, enriching the

value of the former through the act of incarnating GodsLogosissynonymouswithenrichingthevalueofthe latter,as the ontological rebuilding and innovation of humannatureextendsits processtothe restofcreation.

However, incarnation is only the beginning of thisrebuilding and innovation for the world. In order toactivelyrestoreHis creation,Christhad toacceptfreelyHisdeathbycrucifixion,soastoreestablishthecommunionoflovebetweenmanand God,on theonehandand betweenGod and the whole creation, on the other hand. Godssacrifice iscloselyrelated to incarnationand resurrection,beingessential forman and theentirecreationwhichwas doomedtodespairanddeathbecauseofman41.

b. DeathandResurrectionWithout Christs crucifixion, the end of human exile

and the possibility of the prodigal son to return home

couldnothavebeencompleted.This aspectwas particularly underlined by Saint CyrilofAlexandriawho borrowed this idea from SaintApostlePaul and enriched it. In his opinion, we can only bereceivedbyGod theFatherinastateoftruthfuloffering.

Man inastateofsin,exiled inthehorizonofdeath, i.e.in Gods absence or man who fell prey to falserepresentations of Him cannot offer himself to God.Therefore, Christ as man sacrificed Himself to God the Father in truthful offering, not to provide Father with alegal equivalent, but to transfer us the powerful state ofsacrificebyhisunionwithus,sowecanenter,alongwithHim, the world of the Father. Hence we are brought toFatherbymeansofChristsCrossand his crucifiedbody42.

41

Rev.Prof.DumitruGh.Radu,Caracterul ecleziologicalSfintelorTaine i problema intercomuniunii [The Ecclesiological Character ofSacraments and the Issue of Intercommunion], doctoral thesis, in Ortodoxia,yearXXXVIII(1986),n2,p.56.

42Ibidem,p.47.

122


27/32


SoChristsdeathmeans renunciation at every formofselfishness, as instanceof sin for truthfuloffering toGod.Nevertheless,ChristaccepteddeathnotforHimself,butforusandSaintMaximus the ConfessorandSaintAthanasiustheGreatespeciallyunderlinedthisissue.

SinceChristsdeathequals truthfuloffering toGod theFather, death cannot control Christ because the cure for death is love and all that is involved in an offering for loves sake in its supremacy is separated from death and

kept foreternal life.Consequently,ChristsdeathvirtuallycomprisesHisResurrection,too.As an expression of supreme love for God, Christs

death represents a painful experience that marks thepassagetoanotherway ofexistence.OnaccountofChristsstatusasSonofGod incarnated,different fromeveryeachother human individual, along with His death, an entireworld emerges, theworld born fromAdams rib, but alsothe worldpreparedbyGodfor Adamwhowas temptedandfell into sin. The ancient world, the one of the exile,separationand deathdies; itevaporates likeasmalldropin the abyss of love43 and communion of God with His creation.

Owingtothislove,Christsdeathactuallystandsfor the deathofdeath itself and thebeginningof another eternallife.Thus,deathbecomesEaster,apassagetoResurrectionandinthisway,humanityandtheentirecreationtakeback

their place according to the original rhythm andorientation of creation towards the infinite happiness ofcommunionfeltinthemorningofResurrection.

When considered from this perspective, theResurrectionofChrist isnotafinalactfor humanity,butthe beginningofHis Ascension inblessing.Thedivinegiftof Holy Spirit will bless men and cosmos altogetherstarting with the Pentecost, thus leading the entire

creation to incorruptibility and transparency, i.e. acomplete transformation and communication between

43O.Clement,LOrthodoxie,p.42; apudFr.Galeriu,op.cit.

123


28/32


personsand Spiritand toatotalpersonalizationofcosmosinChristand humanbeings44.

c. Creation,renewalanddeificationIncarnation, death and Resurrection of Christ, Son of

God and Son of Man are all historical events andSacramentsofHis Person45 thatenlighten from the insideboth the general sense of history and mans particularexistenceinthemiddleofcreation.

Incarnation of this sense supposes an ontological and moralconversion.Inits turn,thisconversionisnotaworkofmanashumanindividual,butofChrist,throughthe HolySpiritincollaborationwithmanasaliturgicalandecclesialperson.

TheConversionthattookplaceonthedayofPentecostclearlyexpresses this fact.The question that arises in the soul of the ones that participated at the event is aconsequence of the Descent of the Holy Spirit and of theinspired discourse belonging to Saint Peter. According to

theActsofApostles, the witnesses,when (were)prickedin their heart (2, 37), asked: what shall we do? AndPeter gave them the answer: Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for theremissionof sins,andye shall receive thegiftof theHolyGhost.(Acts2,38)

Thence,onPentecost,adeepconversion,acrucifixion,adeathanda resurrection takeplace in theconscienceandlifeof theSaintApostlesand of thewitnesses to thismainevent. The same conversion is to take place in the life ofSaintApostlePaulwhenmeetingGod inthe HolySpiritonthe road toDamascus.After thisencounter, hewas threedayswithoutsight,andneitherdid eatnor drink.(Acts9,9)

In the theology of Church Fathers, the Pentecostrepresents the ultimate moment of salvation, coincidingwith thebeginningof conversion, renewaland deification

44 Rev. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stniloae, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,vol2,p.180.

45Rev.Prof.DumitruGh.Radu,op.cit.,p.41

124


29/32


of every human person who becomes member of thesacramentalbodyofChrist,i.e.ofChurchthroughthe HolySpirit46.

To conclude, the Pentecost stands for the historicalbeginningofChurchand for thecommencementofrevisionfor mans original vocation to become Church of God theLogos, i.e. a place of communion with Godthe Trinitytogetherwiththeentirecreation.

When entering the Church in Holy Sacraments,mans

being becomes a church in its turn. The Church Fathersparticularly insisted on the point thatman can become achurch, his being converted, deified and renewed only inrelationtoChurch47.

Notonlyman,butalsocosmosinits wholecannotfindrenewal and transfiguration outside the relationshipwithChurch,theliturgicalcenterofthe entirecreation48.

VI. InguiseofConclusionThe communionofmanwithChrist realized inChurch

by means of the blessing of the Holy Spirit completelychangesthe attitudetowardscreation.Forman,creationisno longer to be identified with a neutral datum, anobjective nature he can submit to his selfish wishes andpleasures.

Thespirituallyrenewedman,throughcommunionwithChrist becomes the priest of creation,while a part of the

same creation becomes body of Christ by means of theEucharistic elements. Owing to this fact, man no longeridentifies creation with pure essence or a substance()coeternalwithGod,but identifies itasagiftwhich

46 Paul Evdokimov, Prezena Duhului Sfnt n Tradiia Ortodox,[Thepresence of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Tradition],AnastasiaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1995,p.109.

47

Rev.Prof.Dr. DumitruStniloae,Biserica nsensulde loca ide larg comuniune n Hristos, [Church in the sense of shelter and largecommunioninChrist]inOrtodoxia,yearXXXIV(1982)n3,p.341.

48OlivierClement,Le Christ,Terredesvivants,Essaisthologiques,AbbayedeBellefontaine,1976.

125


30/32


mustbe receivedwith a contemplating attitudeandnot apossessiveone.

It is awellknown fact that the contemplating attitudeofmandeterminesone stateofcreationandthepossessiveattitude another one. In other words, the balance ofcreation and its harmony is a consequence of mansspiritual state. The balance of creation is maintainedthankstomansrestinGod.

SaintSymeontheNewTheologiangraspsthisfactinhissensitive poeticism: When they sawAdam expelled fromParadise, all the creatures showed rebellion towardshim;neither the sun, nor the moon or stars accepted him;springsrefusedtoendhisthirstand riverscontinuedtheircourse;winds no longer flew to bring coolness for Adamthe sinner;wild animals and all creatures on Earthwereready toattackman at thesightofhisdecay following theprevious blessing; sky was almost to fell and crush him whileEarthcouldnotbearhissightanymore.

Yet God who created all things and man, altogether,

whatdidHedo?Hedidnot lettheir forcesreleaseagainstman, but ordered the whole creation to stand still anddependonman,becomemortal,servehim inhis mortalityasitwas for manthatHecreatedtheotherbeings;and thisstateisnottoenduntiltherenewedmanbecomesecclesial(), incorruptible and eternal. Only in thatmoment to come the entire creation will be freed fromsubmissionsoastobecomeasrenewed,incorruptible,and ecclesialasmanhimself49.

Therefore, the egocentric and selfish man cannotrelease creation from separation and death. Creationbecomes for him opaque materiality, mirror of hisspiritualdeath in aplacewhereGod is absent andwheretheEarthdeprivedofHim becomesagravefor Oedipus,the blind50.

49SaintSymeontheNewTheologian,TraitthiqueI,ch.2,2990; Sourceschrtiennes,122,p.189190.

50OlivierClement,Le Christ,Terredesvivants,Essais thologiques,AbbayedeBellefontaine,1976.

126


31/32


Bibliography

1. ARISTOTLE, Deanima;apud IoannisZizioulas,Fiinaeclesial[TheEcclesialBeing],TheByzantinePublishingHouse,Bucharest,1996

2. ATHANASIUStheGreat,Saint., v v v (Letter III, S.P.G., XXVI, 632 B.C.), apudPrinteleGaleriu,Jertf i rscumprare [FatherGaleriu,SacrificeandDeliverance],AnastasiaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1991

3. ATHANASIUS theGreat, Saint,Epistola ctreAdelfie[Letter toAdelphi],Rev.Prof.Dr.DumitruRadu,Mntuirea, adouacreaiealumii[Redemption, the second world creation], in Ortodoxia, year XXXVIII

(1986)4. AUGUSTINE, Saint, De libero arbitro; apud Constantin Pavel,

Problema rului la Fericitul Augustin [The Problem of Evil in SaintAugustinesWorks], Bucharest,1937

5. BALCA,Nicolae, Istoriafilosofiei antice[TheHistoryof AncientPhilosophy],IBMBORPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1982

6. BOBINSKY, Boris, Le Mystre de la Trinit, Editions du Cerf,Paris,1986

7. BRIA, Ion, Dicionar de Teologie Ortodox [Dictionary ofOrthodoxTheology]

8. CARRILO,FrancineCvetbert,Une seulechaire:Limaginairelpreuvedu rel.InBulletinduCentreProtestantdEtudes,Gnve,nr. 1., fvrier,1983

9. CLEMENT, Olivier, ntrebri asupra omului [Questions aboutMan],AlbaIulia,1997

10. CLEMENT, Olivier, Le Christ, Terre des vivants, Essaisthologiques,AbbayedeBellefontaine,1976

11. DIONYSIUS the PseudoAreopagite, On the Divine Names,translated in Romanian by Rev. Cicerone Iordchescu and TheofilSimensky,Iai,1936

12. EVDOKIMOV, Paul,LOrthodoxie,Paris,196513. EVDOKIMOV, Paul, Prezena Duhului Sfnt n Tradiia

Ortodox, [Thepresence of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Tradition]AnastasiaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1995

14. GREGORYofNazianzus,Saint,PoemataDogmatica,VII,Despresuflet[OntheSoul],

15. PALAMAS, Gregory, Saint, Prosopeiae; apud VI. Lossky,ThologiemystiquedelglisedOrient,Aubier,1944

16. GREGORY of Nyssa, Saint, Despre crearea omului [On theMakingofMan];apudHenrideLubac

17. IRENAEUS, Saint, Adversus haeresis, apud Henri de Lubac,Catholicisme,Cerf,Paris,1952

127


32/32


17. JUSTIN theMartyrandPhilosopher,Saint, Dialogulcu iudeulTrifon,n Apologei de limb greac [Dialoguewith Trypho, aJew inGreekApologists],IBMBORPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1980

18. LOSSKY, VI., Introducere n Teologia Ortodox [OrthodoxTheology:Anintroduction],translatedinRomanianbyLidiaandRemusRus,EnciclopedicaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,1993

19. MAXIMUS the Confessor, Saint, Ambigua, translated in RomanianbyRev.ProfDr.DumitruStniloae,Bucharest,1980

20. MAXIMUS the Confessor, Saint, Questions to Thalassius,translated inRomanian byRev. ProfDr.Dumitru Stniloae, Filocalia,vol III,Sibiu,1948

21. NELLAS ,Panayotis,Omul, animal ndumnezeit,[Man DeifiedAnimal], DeisisPublishingHouse,Sibiu,1994

22. ORIGEN, In Psalmum; apud, Fr. Galeriu, Sacrifice andDeliverance,AnastasiaPublishingHouse,Bucharest,199123. RADU,DumitruGh., CaracterulecleziologicalSfintelorTaine i

problema intercomuniunii[TheEcclesiologicalCharacterofSacramentsand the Issue of Intercommunion], doctoral thesis, in Ortodoxia, yearXXXVIII(1986)

24. STNILOAE, Dumitru, Biserica n sensul de loca i de largcomuniune n Hristos, [Church in the sense of shelter and largecommunioninChrist]inOrtodoxia,(1982)

25. STNILOAE,Dumitru,OrthodoxDogmaticTheology,vol.I

26. STNILOAE,Dumitru, Spiritualitate i comuniune n LiturghiaOrtodox [Spirituality and communion in the Orthodox Liturgy], Craiova,1986

27. SYMEON the New Theologian,Saint,Trait thique I;Sourceschrtiennes,122

28. YANNARAS, Christos, La foi vivante de lEglise, Cerf, Paris,1989

29. YANNARAS, Christos,La libertde la Morale,Gnve,LaboretFides,1982