Creation of Man and the Establishment of the Family in the Light of the Book of Genesis

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it’…” (Gen.1:26–28)¹

Let us try to make clear the exact meaning of this text.

In the Hebrew text the word for “man” is adam. Adam is therefore not only the name of the first man, but also of man in general. In Hebrew this word occasionally has also the meaning of “common, simple, ordinary man”; it almost never means a male person as such. (There is a rare example of this usage in Eccl.7:28.) The word adam has the same root as the word adama: soil, land, country. It may be that in the Semitic mind the concept of man was at one time closely connected with the notion of soil; in any case it is said in Genesis that he “was taken from the ground” (from adama in the Hebrew, Gen.3:23). Man is an earthly and earthy being, although this does not exclude the fact that he possesses within himself “the breath of life from God” (Gen.2:7), and even deserves the name of “a god and a son of the Most High” (Ps.82:6).

Further on in Genesis it is said that God gave the name “man”, i.e. adam, to both man and woman. This designation should be understood probably as a definition of the nature of the being He had created. God recognized Adam and Eve as men; therefore He must already have had an idea of man. Moreover, man’s correspondence to God necessarily presupposes the idea of man existing within God, as His understanding of Himself. For God could not create anything in His own image if He did not first of all know Himself.

Since the Holy Scriptures call the first man simply “man”, does this not suggest that he was created first without sex? Or, perhaps, that he contained both sexes within himself, was an androgynous being? The Book of Genesis dismisses this notion by saying that God created man as “male and female.” The words zakar and neqebah are used here in the Hebrew text, which mean “man” and “woman” precisely in the sexual sense.² Nowhere in Holy Scriptures is there a trace of the idea of the sexlessness or hermaphroditic nature of Adam.³

The notion of creation in the Hebrew text is expressed by the words bara or asah; these words are used as synonyms and refer simply to the process of creating or making, as commonly understood.

God created man according to His own will and purpose. Man does not proceed from God in some unconscious process of emanation. Nor does he appear as a mere detail in the divine plan of creation. God paid careful attention to the creation of man, making him the crown of all His work.

God creates man in His own image and likeness – tselem and demuth in Hebrew. The first word has a more concrete meaning, signifying shadow, statue, picture, representation, idol. The second term is more abstract, and means likeness, copy, type, form.

By expressing His will to create man in His own image, God does not limit man’s likeness to Himself in any way. We must see man’s likeness to God only in those aspects of his being which are applicable to God. Specifically, in the opening chapters of Genesis, God is revealed as a merciful, wise and just Creator and Provider. We may therefore properly regard these same qualities in man – i.e. his creative power, his care of the world and those who depend on him, his wisdom, mercy and justice – as manifestations of his likeness to God. By commanding man to rule over nature God calls on him to share His Divine sovereignty, on the condition, of course, of man’s subordination to Himself.

How can we explain the use of the plural forms (“let us make man in our image”) in the accounts of man’s creation by God, and also later in connection with the expulsion of man from paradise and the scattering of the nations (Gen.1:26; 3:22; 11:7)? Genesis itself offers no explanation of this usage. And yet it cannot be accidental, since no reference to God in the Bible can be purely fortuitous, especially in texts such as these which are so clearly inspired. Because the Holy Scripture and Tradition are one, revealing the same divinely inspired doctrine, we may explain these words in the light of subsequent revelation. God is not one Person, but Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus man is like God not only in his spiritual nature, but also in the personal character of his existence. If God is “we”, then man too must exist as a multipersonal being. The family is thus presupposed as the divinely established pattern for the existence of the human race.

A more detailed description of the creation of man is given in the second chapter. We learn that God created Adam first, then Eve (Gen.2:7). Man’s body is formed⁴ out of the ground, and so in his body man is an earthly or carnal being, like the animals.

In this text “the breath of life” is to be distinguished from “the living soul.” In Hebrew “breath” is neshamah, meaning breath, breathing, that which breathes (is alive), or, a rational spirit. The being or soul in Hebrew is nephesh. This word is also related to the idea of breath, but in biblical language it usually has the meaning of being, or the total of all man’s vital functions, and is therefore used as a synonym for the word “life.” Adam became a living being when he received from God the breath of life. In man the soul is the principle of life, but the soul itself is given life by the Spirit of God. The soul is not Divine and yet its life proceeds from God.⁵

God prepared paradise that He might place man there to maintain and cultivate it (Gen.2:8–15). Here for the first time we see the outlines of God’s paternal care for men, something which is dealt with again and again in later Scriptures. Before revealing Himself as the Father of His Divine Son, God reveals Himself as the Father of man... The keeping and tilling of paradise must be seen in terms of the general commandment to possess the earth and rule over it. Man’s creative activity is obviously connected with his likeness to God.

Among the other trees of paradise God planted the tree of life (Gen.3:22), and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen.2:16–17). The designation of these trees is clearly explained in the Genesis story. The first was able to give man immortality, something not regarded therefore, in the Old Testament, as an essential element of human nature. To taste the second tree meant the destruction of man’s moral nature, and at the same time of his life. The essential bond between life and morality or between death and immorality was established here with the utmost clarity, once and for all. This necessary connection between justice and existence is the foundation of our whole religion.

Tasting fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not suggest some theoretical knowledge of morality. It is rather the empirical knowledge of evil, bound up with open disobedience to God.

The story of the creation of woman begins with God’s declaration of one of the basic principles of human existence: “It is not good that man should be alone.” (Gen.2:18).⁶ It should be noted that it is solitude as such which is condemned here, not some particular form of the solitary life, such as, for example, celibacy. The word eser, “helper”, also has the most general meaning, without any immediate sexual connotation. The meaning of “helper” is made more precise in the Hebrew text by the expression qenegdoh, meaning “suitable for him”, “fit for him.”

The creation of woman is the answer to man’s need to live with a being similar to himself and turned wholly toward himself, his need for a being who could become his helper and friend. There is no suggestion whatever in this text, which is so basic to the biblical doctrine of woman, that man needed her as a sexual partner or simply as the mother of his children. Adam had already been given the company of animals, but among them “there was not found a helper fit for him.” (Gen.2:20). Adam’s experience of a communion with animals should not, however, be minimized. Its positive aspect lies in the demonstration of man’s unity with the animal world. He belongs to this world in the flesh. Adam’s naming of the beasts, with God’s approval, suggests that he knew them, since the giving of a name corresponds to one’s understanding of the essence or purpose of the thing named. On the other hand, the assertion in Genesis that no animal was “fit” for man is an indication that biblical theology places man by nature above all other creatures.

The book of Genesis does not limit the idea of helper, who must necessarily be woman, to any particular form of “helping.” The Scripture does not say that woman is to help man in any specific way. Her help consists simply in living with her husband and thus eliminating his solitude. For this the wife must be just as human as her husband, since no communion with unequals is fully satisfying. We have seen that Adam could have communion not only with animals but also with God Himself, Who had shown paternal love and care for him. Nevertheless God saw that Adam would be lonely if he could not live with a being like himself. Man in isolation is both incomplete and unhappy. Only in mutual relationships do men attain the fullness of being. This communion was conceived by God as a turning toward one another, and a helping of one another, and no communion between men is as complete as the communion between husband and wife. We have in mind here, of course, not those elements of personality which are independent of sex, but the personal correlation of husband and wife in the union of their masculine and feminine natures.

God had to create not one man, but many, and the basic form of human society had to be the family. If the marriage of husband and wife is the first link in the formation of the family, the union between parents and children and the very conception of children itself in marriage is the second. Proceeding out of this family the whole of mankind must, in God’s plan, form one great family.

And so the creation of Adam was but the first step in the creation of man; the second stage and completion of this process was the creation of woman as man’s wife. The subsequent numerical growth of the human race must have begun with the marriage of the first two persons, though we should remember that the natural birth of man is impossible without the cooperation of God.

Woman is created by the direct action of God. But God created her out of Adam. God first causes a sleep to come upon Adam; then He forms Eve from Adam’s side, and brings her to her husband (Gen.2:21–22).

The sleep which God brought upon Adam is in the Hebrew called tardemah. This word refers to a deep sleep, particularly a sleep in which one sees visions (cf. Gen.15:12). In Greek this sleep is called extasis and in Russian izstuplenie. Thus Adam’s state in this sleep may be understood not as a state of complete insensibility, but rather as a state of inner, supra-conscious tension, in which he was turned, so to speak, to face his future wife. Does this not explain how he was able to recognize her when he first saw her?

God made Eve out of the “flesh and bone” of Adam. No matter how we may define the exact sense of this creation from Adam’s rib, it is obvious that the author of Genesis wishes to emphasize the identity of the wife’s nature with that of her husband. The Hebrew text uses a most extraordinary expression to describe God’s creative act. Literally it says: “And the Lord God built up the rib which He had taken from Adam, in the form of a woman.”⁷

Thus God “built” a new human being out of a part of Adam, thereby completing the creation of mankind.

God Himself then brings Eve to Adam, that there may be no doubt that He created her for him, not as a separate being destined for some individual and self-contained life, but as one who would live with him, in complete union with him.

Adam recognized a part of himself in this woman brought to him by God, saw her as the wife to whom he must “cleave” that they might become one flesh. Adam evidently had at least some idea already of the one who was to become the “helper turned toward him” in relief of his solitude. Eve was the long-expected fulfillment of his deepest need.

The words spoken by Adam about his wife have a much deeper meaning in the original Hebrew text than in any translation. The word “wife” is in Hebrew ishah, and husband – ish. The concepts of husband and wife are thus expressed by the very same word, only with the masculine and feminine word endings. This emphasizes the correspondence and unity of nature between man and woman. They are the same man, the same nature, only in two different forms – masculine and feminine, as it was said at the beginning: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

The wife is “taken” from her husband, and so therefore she is his wife, and it is to him that she returns. The profound thought of Genesis lies in the indissolubility of man and woman – ish and ishah – in the very moment of their creation. God creates not one man but two, in combination and mutual dependence. The fact that God creates the wife out of the husband and for the sake of the husband does not destroy but rather strengthens the double unity of man’s creation, adding a double reality to the unity of man and woman. The wife proceeds from the husband, and is also re-united with him in marriage.

In order to “cleave” to his wife⁸ the husband must be prepared to leave his father and mother. The wife is closer and more needful to her husband than anyone. Adam’s final words define marriage as a union of flesh. This unity in the flesh is the distinctive mark of marriage, giving it the special power of physical, external reality. No other human relationships bring people into this organic, physical union. Although the flesh is not the essence of man, still it is only this physical expression which gives the last degree of evidence and concreteness to the whole spiritual aspect of his existence. It should not be forgotten, however, that marriage is defined in the second chapter of Genesis not only as a union of flesh but also as the uniting of two persons who have been created for each other. In their communion and mutual assistance they overcome their solitude. Thus the idea of marriage is revealed in both its spiritual and its physical aspects.

The story of the bringing of Eve to Adam ends with the brief observation that Adam and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed (Gen.2:25). This absence of shame in the face of nakedness is explained a little further on. The first sign of the fall of Adam and Eve was that “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” In shame they sought to hide themselves from God (Gen.3:7–10). Shame in the face of nakedness proceeds from sin. God Himself makes this clear when He asks: “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you not to eat?” (Gen.3:11). The human body – man’s and woman’s – is created by God. In itself it can only be beautiful and innocent. The seduction of nakedness appears only in the eyes of those who have been aroused by carnal lust – one of the sins with which man has been poisoned.

If every form of carnal desire is a sinful lust, how could there have been any physical intercourse in paradise, and the procreation of children? Is it because of its sinful nature that Eve conceived her first child only after the Fall? Such questions contradict the teaching of Genesis. The command to multiply was given from the very beginning, even before the creation of man, and the definition of marriage as a physical union was proclaimed in paradise immediately following the creation of woman. We must conclude from this that the sensual desire which a husband and wife have for each other can be pure, and so then not a cause for shame. And too, among fallen people, the feeling of shame may not always have a sinful origin. It may also be a wise shame, hiding from others that which in itself is not evil, but which could arouse lewdness or temptations in the impure minds of beholders. The marital relations of husband and wife are concealed by just such a “veil of modesty”, not because they are ashamed, but because the sensuality of people around them could defile their conjugal love and profane something which for them is pure and sacred.

From ancient times commentators on the story of the Fall have drawn attention to the fact that Eve and not Adam was the first victim of the serpent, even though he was seduced by Eve almost as easily as she was by the serpent. It is natural to explain this by saying that the devil took advantage of woman’s yielding nature.

Not even in sin were Adam and Eve separated from one another, although their inward unity was clearly disturbed. Adam seems to renounce his relationship with Eve when he says to God: “The woman whom Thou gavest to me, she gave me the fruit of the tree” (Gen.3:12), as if God had imprudently forced a wife upon him and had in this way led him into temptation! God also tells Eve plainly that her relationship with her husband was radically changed: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen.3:16).⁹ Woman now loses her dignity and equality with her husband, she “runs after him”, and lets him rule over her.

The promise of the “affliction of child-bearing” and “the pain of bringing forth children” does not mean that God has changed His original command to multiply. However, what in paradise would be pure joy has now become a joy not unmixed with suffering. In the same way the joy of creative work which Adam once knew in paradise is after the Fall combined with work “in the sweat of his face.”

Eve receives the name “Life”,¹⁰ because she was the mother of all the living (Gen.3:20). In spite of all the anguish of child-bearing, there is a note of almost triumphant joy and satisfaction in the words Eve speaks when she gives birth to Cain and Seth. There is too the sense that she conceived the children not only by her husband, but also by God. “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord!” (Gen.4:1). “God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel.”¹¹

Thus Genesis explains the procreation of children in two ways: by the intercourse of the husband, and by the operation of God, who bestows the power of conception. The Scriptures speak of the husband’s “knowledge” of his wife in the most literal sense. The Hebrew verb yadah means to comprehend, find out, experience, know, investigate. It is used constantly in the Bible as a term for sexual intercourse. There are no grounds for restricting this “knowledge” to its physical aspect. We have seen that Genesis explains marriage not only as a union of flesh but also a complete personal communion. Eve is not only Adam’s sexual partner, but a co-human-being, with whom he shares his whole life.

Inasmuch as God communicates His power in every conception, He is revealed as the immediate Creator not only of Adam and Eve but of all their children, and indeed of all people everywhere. Man is born into the world by his parents, but at the will and by the cooperation of God.

As it is written (Gen.5:3), Adam’s son Seth was born in the image and likeness of his father. Seth’s likeness to Adam is expressed in the same words as man’s likeness to God. All people, therefore, are like one another by reason of their common descent, and all are, through their forefather Adam, likenesses of God.

This, it seems to me, is the plain meaning of the Genesis story, as it appears in the light of a dispassionate theological study.

Throughout the Old Testament man’s creation by God is viewed as the basis for understanding man’s relation to God. Man is a created being, besides possessing the likeness of God and being beloved by Him. Man is free and independent to the extent that God has given him a certain autonomy, ultimately, however, he is dependent on God.

When God saw that the whole earth was corrupted – “for all flesh had perverted its way” – He regretted that “He had created man on the earth.” (Gen.6:5–12). And yet God does not destroy mankind, rather, in the family of Noah, He reestablishes it. God had created man in His own image, but man had been turned into “corrupted flesh.” If man must now remain forever in this fallen state, his creation would have no meaning. But man could be saved. Herein lies the justification of his creation, even after the Fall.

In the Pentateuch and historical books of the Old Testament there are practically no direct references to the creation of man. God is often proclaimed as the God of the whole earth; the creation of man is simply assumed.

In the prophets also God is usually professed as the Creator of the whole world,¹² or as the Creator of Israel,¹³ and there are also texts in which the creation of man is explicitly stated. “Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it.” (Is.42:5; cf. Gen.2:7).¹⁴ Or again “I made the earth, and created man upon it.” (Is.45:12). In both Isaiah and Jeremiah there is an interesting comparison of God, who forms and shapes man, with the potter, who works over his earthen vessel.¹⁵ This picture immediately brings to mind the account of God’s forming man out of the earth in the second chapter of Genesis.

The psalms are filled with praise of God’s creative work. We need only mention the last six psalms, in praise of God the Creator and Provider, or the remarkable 104th psalm. God creates the nations (Ps.86:9) and the hearts of men (Ps.33:15), i.e. human personality itself.¹⁶ In Psalm 89, Ethan and Ezrahite ask God: “For what vanity has Thou created all the sons of men?” And David says: “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that Thou dost care for him?” (Ps.8:5). Man’s vanity and nothingness do not, however, reduce him to complete nonentity. God continues “to crown him with glory and honor”, and does not take away his dominion “over the works of God’s hand” (Ps.8:6–7), nor does He change the commandment that He laid down in the beginning (Gen.1:26–28).

The Book of Job dwells with special emphasis on God’s creative work. “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.” (Job.12:7–10). And in the 33rd chapter we find almost a paraphrase of Gen.2:7: “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life... I too was formed from a piece of clay…” (Job.33:4–6). Thus also the Preacher (Ecclesiastes) when he says: “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” (Eccl.12:7). Here the author may have in mind not so much the soul of man as the divine “breath of life” which gives it life.¹⁷ The creation of man from the earth is also affirmed by Jesus the son of Sirach, who says that God “granted to men authority over the things upon the earth.” (Sir.17:1–2).

Let us study a little more closely those Old Testament texts which shed light on the seventh verse of the second chapter of Genesis. There can be no doubt that the Old Testament teaches the existence of a created spirit in man.¹⁸ But many texts speak also of the Spirit or Breath of God as the basis for human life. In Gen.6:17 and Gen.7:15 man is described as flesh in which dwells the spirit of life; and this spirit (ruach) may be regarded as Divine and not creaturely.¹⁹ Angels are created by the breath (spirit) of God’s mouth (Ps.33:6). In Psalm 51 David begs to be confirmed by God’s Spirit. Psalm 104 speaks both of the spirit of natural life and the Spirit of God, which “creates and renews the face of the ground.” (Ps.104:29–30). Ezekiel too speaks of the presence in man of both a Divine and a created spirit. God gives man a new spirit, but without the Spirit of God the “dead bones” of human nature – even when “covered with flesh” – are still dead (Ezek.36:26–27, 37:1–14). The words of Zechariah are interesting here: “The Lord who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him.” (Zech.12:1). The word “formed” (yatsar) is the same as that used in Gen.2:7, where God is described as “forming” the body of Adam. Thus the prophet sees a similarity between the Divine operations which form the body of man and those which form his soul, although nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find the thought that the human soul or spirit is formed, like the body, out of some pre-existent substance. We may, however, admit the possibility that the souls of men are created by God out of the souls of their parents.²⁰

The notion of “the breath of God” in Scripture is, as we have already said, a synonym for “the Spirit of God”, and of the two expressions the former is encountered much less frequently.²¹

In many texts it is difficult to establish whether it is the creaturely spirit of man being spoken of or the Divine spiritual power which – according to biblical theology – is given at the moment of man’s creation. The immediate sense of these texts²² suggests a reference to a creaturely spirit, but it is quite possible that the authors were also assuming the presence in man of the life-giving spirit of God... The spirit of man is given by God. It proceeds out of man and returns to God, but it can return again into man. This return of the spirit into a man’s body restored after death provides the basis for the idea of resurrection.

The notion of God’s image in man is rarely mentioned in the Old Testament. There is one more reference to it in Genesis, as a basis for the prohibition against the shedding of blood (Gen.9:6). Nothing more is said about it until we come to the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is written: “God created man for incorruption and made him in the image of His own eternity.” (Wis.2:23). These words are remarkable in that they see man’s likeness to God in an incorruption similar to God’s own eternal existence. This idea is at least present, however, in Genesis, since the tree of life in paradise bestows immortality on those who eat of it. Jesus the son of Sirach simply observes that God has made men “in His own image” (Sir.17:3).

The Old Testament may rarely speak explicitly of the image of God in man, but the notion is everywhere implied. In fact the Old Testament constantly inculcates the doctrine of man’s likeness to God, and repeatedly invites man to enter into this likeness. Contrary to the view of many critics, crude anthropomorphism is not a characteristic of the Old Testament, although it may well be that the half-believing Israelites suffered often from this error. There can be no doubt, of course, that many great men of the Old Testament saw God in the image of a man,²³ or that the purely spiritual image of God, as revealed in Holy Scripture, corresponds to the ideal spiritual nature of man.²⁴ But the Scriptures never lose sight of the fact that man’s likeness to God – whether He be seen in a vision of His glory or in spiritual contemplation – is always limited: God far surpasses everything human and created.²⁵

The creation of woman is not discussed anywhere in the Old Testament outside the Book of Genesis.²⁶ Nor does the question of solitude become the subject of any special consideration in the Scriptures. The notion of solitude as a theological question is quite alien to the Bible, and as such arises only in later monastic theology. We have a clear condemnation of isolation in Eccl.4:8–9, and in the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach (Sir.36:24–29). The unmarried state is regarded by the Old Testament as unnatural, and one which no one would desire under normal circumstances. Throughout the Old Testament the concept of woman and her vocation as wife and mother remains in general true to the ideas of Genesis, and though the whole Old Testament view of man is somewhat simplified in comparison with that of the New, its sense is the same, and it is often expressed with great force and depth.

In Old Testament history we encounter examples of an almost passionate motherhood (Sarah, Leah, Rachel, Tamar, Anna), and also of devoted wives (Sarah, Rebecca, Abigail, Susannah); examples of the still more fervent love of husbands for their wives are also frequent (Jacob, David, Elkadah, Phalti, Solomon).

We find the clearest pictures of the ideal woman in the Book of Proverbs (especially the last chapter) and in the Song of Songs.

In Proverbs, so close in spirit to the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, woman is presented as the husband’s life companion and helper in all the affairs of the family. A good wife brings happiness to her husband and to the entire household. A bad wife, however, is “like rottenness in his bones” (Prov.12:4), and “tears down his house with her own hands.” (Prov.14:1).²⁷ “An irreproachable wife” is better even than children (Sir.40:19; cf. 1Sam.1:8).

In general the Old Testament does not degrade woman, and actually glorifies many women on a par with men, as, for example, the wives of the patriarchs, Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Anna, Esther and Judith. But we also find occasionally a sharp criticism of woman. Thus the Preacher cries that while one good man can be found in every thousand, a good woman can never be found! (Eccl.7:25–29). Jesus the son of Sirach writes that “from a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” (Sir.25:27). In general a special evil power and inconstancy in goodness are attributed to women.²⁸ And yet sinfulness corrupts man as much as it does woman... In all this the Old Testament never departs from the teaching of Genesis.

The Song of Songs gives another picture of the relationship between man and woman. Other books of the Old Testament too, of course, beginning with Genesis, speak of this relationship.²⁹ To a spiritualistic theology, however, the Song of Songs has seemed too sensual, and most ancient commentators have allegorized it, turning it into a parable on the relationship of the soul (or the Church) to God. There is no reason for simply dismissing the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The Holy Scriptures evidently see a similarity between the relationship of man and woman and that of God and men. To be convinced of this one need only read the 16th and 24th chapters of Ezekiel and the first three chapters of Hosea. But this similarity demonstrates at once that the relationship between a husband and wife are themselves valuable and profound from the religious viewpoint. After all, no evil or superficial phenomenon could so clearly illustrate the perfect love God has for man. If to be a husband or wife is an obscene and degrading thing, how then can God and Christ be compared with the husband... or the soul that is turned to God (and even the entire Church) be compared with the wife? St.Paul not only continues, but also raises to its highest level, the prophets’ typology of marriage (cf. Ephesians). To reject every positive interpretation of the Song of Songs except the allegorical interpretation seems to me, therefore, unjustified. This approach originates in Philo and has come down to us through Origen and St.Gregory of Nyssa. It has a right to exist, of course, but it ought not to exclude a more realistic understanding of the text.

The Song of Songs contains one of the most perfect descriptions in all the world’s literature of a man’s and woman’s irresistible attraction for one another. It stands as the finest commentary on Adam’s words that the husband must be prepared to forsake all and cleave to his wife in the union of flesh. The meaning of this book does not lie in its sensual descriptions, but in its representation of this irresistible and invincible power of love. “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is as strong as death... Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.” (S. of S. 8:6–7). In the Song of Songs the bride and bridegroom are as brother and sister, as Adam and Eve – who were bound together not only by marriage but also by the ties of birth. The notion that husband and wife are united not only in the flesh but also by a simple filial love agrees with the teaching of Genesis: that marriage is the overcoming of spiritual isolation.

God predicts to Eve the painful and, in a sense, humiliating position of woman after the Fall. The Old Testament confirms this prophecy. It is not a matter of the innate baseness of woman, but of her psychological and social position, her excessive dependence on her husband. There is already much that is humiliating for women in the stories of Sarah, Hagar, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, Tamar, the daughter of Jephthah, the wife and the daughter of David. The Law of Moses, too, places woman in a position inferior to man. We should distinguish, of course, between crude mores and social injustices on the one hand, and woman’s psychological dependence upon her husband and children on the other. The former are gradually being overcome in the history of mankind, and not without the help of Christianity. The latter will never be overcome so long as woman remains woman. Man’s dependence on man is by no means an evil when it is based on humility and love, on the communion of friendship and voluntary cooperation. Both men and children, after all, depend in the most profound way upon women. And Eve was already bound to Adam in paradise, long before the Fall. The evil spiritual enslavement of woman begins where she becomes morally and socially humiliated and helpless without her husband, whenever she becomes dissolved in family matters as a kind of serf or in the demands of the flesh as a mere sexual mate, and whenever she must resort to subterfuge in order to get what is hers. The Old Testament frequently describes this condition in which women find themselves after the Fall, but never sanctions it.

The multiplication of the human race is a constant theme in the Old Testament. God’s command to be fruitful, as expressed in Genesis, is repeated over and over again in the Old Testament in one way or another. God’s words to Noah after the flood are a word for word repetition of what was said to man in paradise: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.” (Gen.9:1). Abraham is promised descendants who will be counted as the sand of the sea. Joseph’s father gives him, from the Almighty, “a blessing of the breasts and of the womb.” (Gen.49:25). Jeremiah counsels the Hebrews who have settled in Babylon “to take wives and have sons and daughters... multiply there, and do not decrease.” (Jer.29:6). The psalms extol large families as a special blessing from God (Ps.127, 128). After all his sufferings God gives Job seven sons and three daughters, “and in all the land there were no women so fair as Job’s daughters.” (Job.42:15). If the Old Testament occasionally expresses doubt about the blessing of children, it is only because of the moral evil which has corrupted the very conception of children. Only under the pressure of unbearable suffering are people prepared to curse the day of their conception and coming into the world. And so the authors of the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach are agreed that being without children is better than giving birth to children in circumstances of depravity³⁰. The prophet Hosea begs God to punish the enemies of Israel by giving them “a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” (Hos.9:14). Both Job and Jeremiah curse the day of their birth (Job.3:1–26. Jer.20:14), but only under the weight of heavy afflictions.

All mankind stems from Adam. For the Old Testament this is an indisputable fact,³¹ even though the notion of the unity of the human race seems to be obscured occasionally in the Old Testament by its exclusive concentration on the affairs and destiny of Israel.

God’s immediate participation in the birth of man is affirmed throughout the Old Testament. God gives children not only to Eve, but also to Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Manoah, Anna, and to the mother of Samuel.³² “Thy hands fashioned and made me; and now thou dost turn about and destroy me. Remember that thou hast made me of clay; and wilt thou turn me to dust again? Didst thou not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and steadfast love; and thy care has preserved my spirit.” And the 119th Psalm repeats: “Thy hands have made and fashioned me.” (Ps.119:73). And again: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” (Ps.139:13–17). “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”, God says to Jeremiah, “and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jer.1:5; cf. Jer.31:27). The words of the mother of Maccabeus are especially remarkable on this point, since they connect the birth of man with his resurrection: “I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.” (2Macc.7:22–23). If it is God who gives birth to man, then He too can restore life to man’s remains! God is the eternal source of life!

The traditional understanding of the account in Genesis of the formation of the first family is therefore fully supported by the theology of the Old Testament as a whole. This theology is clearly founded on Genesis, and we shall see that the New Testament follows the Old in its interpretation of this story.

The New Testament continues to teach the Old Testament doctrine of the creation of man. Christ makes direct reference to Genesis in speaking to the Pharisees of man’s creation: “Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning...” etc. (Mat.19:4).³³ St.Paul and St.John give us a very highly developed doctrine of creation. The former reminds the Lystrians “of the living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.”³⁴ For Paul, all men could know God as the Creator, if only they would see the presence “of His eternal power and deity” in the world.³⁵ “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.”³⁶ St.Paul always ascribes the initiative in creation to God the Father, who creates all things by Jesus Christ (Eph.3:9), by the Word of God (Heb.11:3) and through His Son (Heb.1:2). All things exist for God the Father and from Him; He has made all things (Heb.2:10; 3:4). In the Book of Revelation the twenty four elders say: “Thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.” (Rev.4:11).

The Son of God participates in creation as the One in, by and through whom the Father creates. According to Revelation, Christ is “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev.3:14), a thought expressed also in Proverbs long before (Prov.8:22). The prologue to St.John’s Gospel also tells us: “All things were made through Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” (John.1:3). And yet St.John is obviously aware that the initiative in creation lies with the Father. St.Paul tells us that “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor.8:6). “For in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Col.1:16–17). St.Peter, in turn, teaches that “by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water…” (2Pet.3:5).

The New Testament completes the Old Testament teaching on creation through the Word and Spirit, revealing the existence of three persons within God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The enigmatic “we” of Genesis is explained.³⁷

The New Testament also teaches that “we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens... that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” (2Cor.5:1–5). Man is created for eternal life. The fruits of the tree of life are returned to man in Christ, the Bread of Life (John.6). God gives us everything abundantly for our enjoyment, just as He gave all things to our forefathers in paradise (1Tim.6:17). We are “created in Christ for good works” (Eph.2:10), just as Adam was created to cultivate the world. We are created for communion with God, a communion which began in paradise (Acts.17:27). We are, in short, created for God.³⁸

The New Testament doctrine on God’s image in man is extensive and significant, and is clearly based on the teaching of Genesis. The concept itself is referred to on many occasions (e.g. Jas.3:9. 1Cor.11:7).

The distinctive element in the New Testament teaching on man’s likeness to God is that this is attained through becoming likened to Christ, who from all eternity is the perfect Image of God, as God’s Son. The whole of the first Epistle of St.John is a call to become like God through His Son Jesus Christ, in truth and purity and love. St.Paul calls Christ “the Image of the invisible God” (2Cor.4:4. Col.1:15), or “the glory of God bearing the stamp of His nature.” (Heb.1:3). In Philippians he says that Christ “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…”³⁹ Thus when we compare the New Testament doctrine on God the Father and God the Son, we see that the Father and Son are similar in nature and being, in their freedom and omnipotence, in their blessedness and perfection, in love, wisdom and knowledge, in their holiness, eternal nature, simplicity and goodness. As the Nicene Fathers expressed it, because the Son of God is in all things like the Father, He must also be of one substance with Him.

Christ is the Image of God. Christians must be images of Christ. “To those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might become the firstborn among many brethren.”⁴⁰ He calls the Corinthians to imitate him as he himself imitates Christ.⁴¹ These words form the basis for the veneration of saints, since they are for us images of Christ, who is the Image of us all. It does not follow from this that the saints “screen” Christ from us, or that we know Him only through them and never directly. God is “marvelous in His saints” and His saints are indeed “holy” to God and Christ, but the one Mediator between God and man is “the Man Jesus Christ.” (1Tim.2:5). He alone has made God known to us (John.1:18).

Christians are reformed in God’s image (2Cor.3:18) and follow Christ forever (Rev.14:4). Christ took our likeness even to the extent of accepting temptation and death (Heb.2:9–18); so too we must take up the Cross of Christ if we wish to be formed in His image (Gal.2:19. Rom.6. 2Cor.4:16).

The whole of man is renewed when God’s image is restored in him. “You did not so learn Christ!” St.Paul writes to the Ephesians, “assuming that you have heard about Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” And the Apostle adds: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us...” (Eph.5:1–2). It is impossible to be a child of God if one does not bear within oneself the image of God, for the son is always like his father. The Apostle writes no less clearly in his letter to the Colossians: “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all. Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” (Col.3:9–14). If we compare Eph.4:1–5:21 with Col.3:1–17, it becomes clear that what the Apostle regarded as conformity of man to God actually meant becoming like Christ, living in Christ, and participating in His Kingdom, in unity of spirit and truth through faith, in holiness, righteousness and purity, in wisdom, love, gentleness, goodness, long-suffering, peace, that is, in a spiritual perfection similar to that of God Himself.

Especially interesting for us is St.Paul’s doctrine – developed in his Epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians – on the image of God in man and woman. “I would also have you know”, he writes, “that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God... Man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” (1Cor.11:3–12). What we may conclude from this text is, first of all, that the image and glory of God belong exclusively to the husband, while the wife is the image and glory of her husband. But the second half of the quotation shows that St.Paul had no intention of separating the wife from her husband. The husband does not exist without his wife, but through his wife, and both are from God. The difference between the image of God in husband and wife lies only in this: the former receives it directly from God while the latter receives her image through the husband, being created out of him and in his likeness.

We should not overlook the comparison which St.Paul makes between the image of God and the glory of God. Nothing is said in Genesis about the glory of God in connection with the creation of man. Yet New Testament theology regards glorification as an essential element of perfect holiness. This glory may remain almost invisible in the saints during their lifetime, but it is an attribute of their life, and it will be manifested after their death. This is what happened with Christ. The Fall had obscured the image of God in man and taken away his glory. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, writes St.Paul (Rom.3:23). But of Christians who have been transformed in Christ, he says: “We all with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another...” (2Cor.3:18). God’s glory is given, then, to those who preserve or acquire His image in their lives. The Fathers of the Church believed that Adam and Eve were bathed in the glory of God when they lived in paradise, and that they lost this glory in the Fall.

In Ephesians, St.Paul draws a parallel between the relationship of Christ and the Church and that of husband and wife (Eph.5:20–23). In Corinthians, he seems to conclude that there is an essential inequality between man and woman, based on the inequality which exists between Christ as God and the Church made up of men. But this conclusion would be only partially true. Christ is God, of course, and yet in the text from Ephesians the Apostle says, “we are members of His Body, of His flesh and bones”, so that in a certain sense Christ too is a member of the Body, as its Head. Christ is both above the Church and on a level with her. As God, He is exalted above the Church by His very nature; and in His manhood He possesses an absolute primacy and dominion over man. But the Son of God became man not to be separated from the Church in any way; He came to build up the Church within Himself after His own image, to unite her with Himself. Thus Eve was created from Adam, according to his image, and was united with him. In St.Paul’s words: “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that the Church might be presented before Him in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; that she might be holy and without blemish... because we are members of His Body, of His bones and of His flesh.” (Eph.5:25–27, 30).

The primacy of the husband over his wife is not something ontological;⁴² at most it has a relative significance in this life alone. St.Paul’s main thesis is that husband and wife form a unity or whole. They are destined for one another and are one not just by virtue of their marriage, but also by their very nature. In this the Apostle is only repeating the doctrine of Genesis, and on the strength of it concludes that the husband’s love for his wife is natural and necessary. To love one’s wife means simply to love oneself, i.e., one who is not only similar, but also identical with oneself. The wife is something more than an image of her husband: she is part of him, a whole with him. But in spite of this equality their relationships may not be reversed. Just as Christ does not depend on the Church but the Church on Christ, so also the wife becomes a wife because of her husband’s love. The foundation of marriage is the husband’s genuine love for his wife and his self-sacrificing concern for her. Christ not only “feeds and nourishes” the Church, i.e. takes thought for her general welfare, but also and above all He is concerned for her holiness and purity. So, too, then the husband must be concerned not only about his wife’s physical well-being but also about her inner life. The whole spiritual wealth and power of the husband must be reflected in the spiritual perfection of the wife, who then becomes – in the Apostle’s words – the image and glory of her husband. It should be remembered, of course, that the husband’s perfection (as expressed in his love and active care for his wife) comes from God through Christ, for all things are from God; and God – as St.Paul says to the Corinthians – acts not only through the husband upon the wife, but also through the wife upon the husband.

In this study we cannot pass by St.Paul’s teaching about Christ as the new Adam, developed especially in his Epistles to the Romans (Rom.5:12–21) and to the Corinthians (1Cor.15:36–57). The doctrine may be summarized as follows. The first Adam was only “the seed of man”, i.e., the basis upon which the new and more perfect man must in the end be created. The Apostle’s thought here is not altogether clear. There is a temptation to understand him as saying that the first Adam and his family were destined in God’s plan to experience the Fall and death. This interpretation does not follow logically from the text of the Epistle, however, and it would contradict the theology of the Bible as a whole. Instead, Paul may well have believed that man was from the beginning destined to enter a state of deification higher than that of paradise, even supposing the Fall were not to occur. Following the teaching of Genesis, he reminds us that Adam was created from the earth as a “living being”, i.e. man had a created and “living” soul. And so he was capable of being turned to sin, capable of being made subject to mortality, for created being possesses neither inviolable sanctity nor inborn immortality. St.Paul states clearly that Adam’s fall came from sin (transgression), not from some natural necessity, and that death is the direct result of sin. We have no reason to doubt that St.Paul accepted the teaching of the Book of Wisdom, that “God did not make death.” (Wis.1:13–16, 2:23–24). Adam’s sin was the sin of disobedience. Adam rose up against God, and for this treachery he was condemned, expelled from paradise and subjected to mortality. Adam’s sinful nature and mortality was then transferred to his descendants, who live “in the image of their earthly forefather.” All of this agrees perfectly with the Genesis story.

St.Paul contrasts the first Adam with the New Adam: Christ. Christ is “the man who is the Lord from heaven.” This does not mean that His human nature was divine, or created in heaven prior to the Incarnation. St.Paul was not docetic, but taught that the Son of God was born of a woman “in the fullness of time”, of the family of David (Gal.4:4. Rom.1:3). The new Man was God made man, and therefore He possessed a perfect immutability with regard to goodness and eternal life: the human nature of God could not fail to be perfect. But in order to unite fallen man to Himself Christ voluntarily identified Himself with the whole of Adam’s race, and took sin and death upon Himself. Neither spiritual nor carnal corruption, however, could have dominion over Christ the Lord – the heavenly and spiritual man and “Life-giving Spirit.” In His manhood Christ manifested a perfect righteousness and obedience to the Father, even to the point of complete self sacrifice. In Him, therefore, man is justified, filled with grace, receiving the gift of incorruption and eternal life. “For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.” “Death is swallowed up in victory!” Those who are in Christ belong to a new human race: “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”

St.Paul draws a contrast between the old and new Adam and their forms of existence, but it is no accident that he calls them both “Adam”. The new Adam, Christ, does not simply replace the original, but renews him within Himself. It is the same image of God in both, but in Christ the image is revealed and actualized in a perfection that the first Adam could never attain, Christ being the Son of God who from eternity “bears the very stamp of His nature.”⁴³

Christ reaffirms the teaching that God did not create man in general, but man and woman. “From the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (Mark.10:6; cf. Mat.19:4). St.Paul stresses the fact that she was created second, and was the first to sin, and sees both circumstances as the origin of her dependence on the subjugation to her husband (1Cor.11:8–12. 1Tim.2:11–15). We have already noted that within the wife’s dependency a distinction must be made between her creation for the sake of her husband, in order to share his life and be his spiritual and domestic helper, and that base dependency which appeared after the Fall.

Marriage is understood in the New Testament in essentially the same way as it is in Genesis: as the complete unity of husband and wife, and above all as a unity of flesh (Mat.19:4–6. Mark.10:6–9). Christ was only clarifying the doctrine of Genesis when He stated plainly that it is God who brings the husband and wife together. Conjugal unity depends, therefore, not just on the partners in marriage, or on the decision of the husband to “cleave” to his wife, but also on God’s will. Anyone who destroys a marriage destroys the work of God and sins against Him. Divorce comes from the hardness of heart and depravity of the husband or wife.

According to St.Paul “two can be made one flesh” even in fornication. But this purely carnal union only defiles those who commit such fornication. What within marriage is a mystery, like Christ’s union with the Church, is outside marriage defiled. Again we see that marriage is not a casual physical relationship, but the all-embracing union of husband and wife (1Cor.6:15–20; cf. Eph.5:22–33). Immediately after this passage in Corinthians, St.Paul advises married couples not to avoid physical intercourse with each other, and to remember that they belong to one another in the flesh. In general, it is better to be able to enjoy the conjugal rights than to be tempted and “inflamed” (1Cor.7:1–9). The Apostle continues by saying that husband and wife can sanctify and save one another through marriage, even when one of them is an unbeliever. Also, the children of such mixed marriages are holy (1Cor.7:10–17). If husband and wife surrender to each other not only their bodies but also their souls and entire beings, it is only natural that the spiritual power and strength of one should be transmitted to the other... Elsewhere St.Paul speaks mainly about the influence that a husband may have on his wife, and advises wives to be, above all things, obedient.⁴⁴ St.Peter, too, counsels wives to be obedient, and at the same time testifies to the great positive influence a wife may have upon her husband, urging husbands to deal kindly and honorably with their wives (1Pet.3:1–2). A woman’s heart can be so filled with the “incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit” that her “chaste and reverent behavior” may without a word win her husband for God. In his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, St.Paul sketches the figure of a wife closely resembling the model wife of Proverbs. This is the ideal of a wise, chaste and submissive wife who cares for the master’s household, who loves her children, and ministers to their needs (1Tim.5:1–16. Tit.2:1–5).

The New Testament does not dwell as much as the Old on the question of multiplication of the human race. What is new here in the New Testament is the idea of spiritual re-birth, understood not only as the personal inner regeneration of man’s soul,⁴⁵ not just the renewal of man by grace in Christ and the Holy Spirit,⁴⁶ but also as the power to spiritually regenerate others. We may recall what St.Paul said to the Corinthians, Galatians and Philemon: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1Cor.4:15). “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal.4:19). “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.” (Philem.1:10).

And yet our Lord does speak of the great significance of human birth. “When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is born into the world.” (John.16:21). These words – “that a child is born into the world” – resound as a triumphant heralding of the manifestation of a new man. So too, the unnamed woman cried out in joy: “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” (Luke.11:27). Christ’s answer – “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it” – is typical of the New Testament preference for the spiritual over the physical. But, He did not condemn the words of the woman about the Holy Mother, whom “all generations have called blessed.” In the sanctity of marriage, children are brought into the world in a sacred way; childbearing is sanctified by the grace of marriage (1Cor.7:14). A woman can even be saved by child-bearing “if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (1Tim.2:15). It may be objected that those who live in faith and love and holiness are saved by these and not by having children, and yet the task of motherhood – the creation of a new man, a new Christian – is obviously an exploit in which the physical and spiritual elements are inseparable. For women, the bearing of children is a life task, a task of love and faith and holiness. Without this task, too many women become useless and fall into bad ways, as is so clearly pointed out by St.Paul in his Epistle to Timothy (1Tim.5:7–15). It is for good cause that the Apostle urges women to love their children (Tit.2:4). Both our Lord and St.Matthew the Evangelist speak with deep compassion of the grief of women who have lost their children (Luke.23:28. Mat.2:18).

The New Testament does not change the doctrine that it is God who gives us children. It was not only our Lord Himself who was conceived by the Holy Spirit – John the Baptist also was conceived according to God’s promise; and St.John says that God could raise up children for Abraham even from stones (Mat.3:9; cf. Acts.17:28).

The New Testament repeatedly asserts man’s descent from Adam and Eve. St.Paul says that “God has made from one blood every nation of men.” (Acts.17:26). St.Luke traces Christ’s genealogy back to Adam (Luke.3:38). The same idea is presupposed by St.Paul’s doctrine of the old and new Adam.

We have seen how the Fall is understood by the New Testament just as it is in Genesis, even though St.Paul lays special emphasis on the guilt which Eve acquires and then communicates – with all its consequences – to woman in general. Undoubtedly he regarded any pre-eminence of woman as dangerous, as being something for which they were in fact unfitted. Their inability may be defined as a lack of a precise and comprehensive understanding of reality. The intuition for life and people which they so often display does not bring women to see things and events in sufficient perspective. They are much more likely than man to make errors in their evaluation of reality. The feminine mind is concrete and emotional, but more than this is required to direct the affairs of life. Thus the vocation of leadership belongs, as a rule, to men, and St.Paul constantly insists on this.⁴⁷

The concept of marriage and the family is higher in the New Testament than in the Old, but it does not contradict the older view. Instead, it completes it. In Christ’s words: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke.14:26; cf. Mat.10:34–39). And St.Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the impending distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage… I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1Cor.7:25–27, 32–35). And, we are all familiar with Christ’s teaching on voluntary renunciation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of God (Mat.19:12).⁴⁸

The preference for virginity in the New Testament is beyond debate; what is debatable is its explanation. In the teaching of Jesus Christ and St.Paul, virginity is usually extolled because it permits a man to devote himself single-mindedly to God and His service here on earth. But, in the Apocalypse, we run across the notion that the throng of redeemed are glorified because they “have not defiled themselves with women.” (Rev.14:1–5). This is a hard saying and if read literally it could be taken as a condemnation of marriage, and would actually contradict other passages of Scripture. In any case, this text suggests that the physical aspect of sex is by nature base, and so virginity is higher than marriage. But this single text cannot be used as the basis for a theological theory, and the New Testament as a whole extols virginity not because of its higher spiritual quality, but because it offers freedom from the world with its afflictions and cares. Our Lord’s words, to the effect that in the Kingdom of Heaven they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels of God (Mat.22:29–33), refer to the world to come, and to the strictly physical acts of marriage. They need not be taken as a prophecy of the complete breakdown of all family relationships initiated here on earth. Love, and in general all the spiritual bonds between husbands and wives and between parents and children, will still exist in the world to come. This, at least, was the view of St.John Chrysostom, and so it is of all Christians who in Christ deeply love their husbands or wives, parents or children. The ideal of an all-embracing service of God or of an all-embracing spiritualization can alter the form of Christian family life and can even lead to a separation of children and parents, but the inner spiritual bond between members of a family is eternal, since the family is established by God Himself, who joins the husband and wife in marriage and gives them children. “The husband loves his wife as Christ loves the Church.” “Honor thy father and thy mother.” These are the words of God, and not man. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

If in the Sadducees’ story a childless widow had seven husbands, then ultimately, in the moral sense, it could be said that she had none at all – like the woman of Samaria. Christ’s reply to the woman was that she had no husband because she had had six. It is interesting that she knew herself that she had no husband...

Marriage must not be understood in a purely formal way, any more than as a purely physical relationship. For then its whole value could very well be reduced to superficial earthly relations lying outside any religious, spiritual or moral categories. The family can be a purely physical and social institution concealing the existence of mutual indifference, troubles, or even hatred between the husband and wife. Such a family is a pitiful and evil perversion of the family instituted by God after the model of the marriage in paradise.