What was heaven?

You know this because you were already born then (Job 38:21). The question of heaven emanates something special. He involuntarily seems somehow dangerous, something about which it is better not to think, because it is difficult to think of anything here. This attitude to this issue is apparently already noticeable in the Writer of Genesis himself. He is very careful and reserved in this section of his book. His description of heaven is full of omissions and ambiguities. Although an entire chapter is devoted to the paradise life of the first parents and the description of paradise itself takes up almost half of it, most of this description speaks of the location of paradise, and only two or three verses contain a description of this mysterious location of the first man. Brevity in such an important subject The writer of everyday life warns us against petty inquisitiveness in this area. But at the same time, this brevity encourages us to especially carefully delve into the general meaning and spirit of this exceptional place in the Bible. Unfortunately, the latest biblical literature gives us little on such an interesting and important issue. The most scientific foreign commentaries on the Old Testament look at the story of paradise as a saga, and the orthodox do not go beyond the letter of the text. Russian exegetical literature now has a new and complete explanation of the first chapters of the book of Genesis. We mean a number of articles on this issue in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” (since 1900) by Y. K. Bogorodsky, which were published not very long ago as a separate book 1 . The author pleasantly amazes with a new and fruitful explanation of places that have lost so much of their charm from old interpretations. With a completeness rare in modern commentaries, he also introduces the rich data of paternal exegesis, making one marvel at its treasures. But he seems to deliberately hush up the problem of paradise and avoid all the difficulties of Chapter II. Genesis (her unexpected return to the story of creation). It is immediately clear that the first three chapters of Genesis, and especially II and III, cannot be understood and explained in the same way as any other place in the Bible. The method of interpretation here must be, one might say, directly opposite to the method of expounding other passages of the Bible. And it's clear why. The life and relationships that the first chapters of the book of Genesis describe no longer have an analogy to themselves in the present sinful world. The work of the interpreter in relation to any other passage of the Bible comes down to shedding all possible philological and archaeological light on the passage being explained, in other words, to finish the omissions of the sacred author and replace his brief and understandable story or reasoning for contemporaries with a more thorough one that more satisfies the current requirements for completeness in the study of each phenomenon. Not so with the biblical story of heaven. It is immediately obvious that if the interpreter had dared to finish anything here with the writer of everyday life, he would have profaned the holiness and majestic simplicity of his story. Nothing, perhaps, discredited this story, dear to every believer since childhood, more than Milton’s fantasy and the artistic brush of the so-called real school of painting. The method of interpretation here should not be detailed, but restrictive. The reader should not transgress in his imagination the firm boundaries set by the God-inspired narrator. The best thing will be if, when reading this exceptional story in the Bible, he completely suppresses his imagination, cleanses his thoughts from gross materiality, imparting to his mind that “simplicity” and “ugliness” that the teachers of asceticism demanded of him for the so-called “smart” prayer. Let us present proof to the contrary as the strongest of proofs. Let us apply the usual method to explain the biblical story of paradise. Without a doubt, all the best that the earth was able to produce, not the present depleted and dilapidated one, but the then young and virgin earth, could decorate paradise. The vegetation of the then earth and, in particular, of paradise cannot be represented in the form of present vegetation. The fossilized remains of primeval vegetation have been preserved in the strata of the globe. They amaze with their enormity. Most of the then existing types of vegetation no longer exist at all. If any of the current vegetation can give some idea of ​​what was then, it is the luxurious and impenetrably dense (as in South America) tropical vegetation. The enormity of the growth of the trees of that time had to correspond to the quality of their fruits. The quality of the latter also cannot be judged by the current fruits. The virgin land poured its young and full of life juices into these fruits, and they, in nutritional value, as well as in appearance, perhaps surpassed all the best types of modern food. Based on the remark of the Writer of Life that the trees of paradise were not only good in food, but also red in vision, one can endow them with all the play of colors and all the variety of shapes. Our imagination can increase the delights of this paradise as much as it likes, just as the fantasy of many mythologies did. But how much does such a representation say to the mind and heart? They will say that the beauty of the garden was accompanied by inner spiritual bliss, peace and quiet of a clear conscience, the sweetness of communication with God, perhaps His contemplation. But 1) this is a completely different matter. No one doubts that heaven is possible even in a poor man's hut. The writer of everyday life persistently makes it clear that the ancestors had not only a spiritual paradise, but also an external environment that left nothing better to be desired. 2) The writer of everyday life actually says nothing about this inner, spiritual paradise of the ancestors, perhaps only assuming it as self-explanatory. Only a negative conclusion can be drawn about him, through contrast, from the words of the curse for sin. Everything sent to the first parents as punishment for sin should not have tormented them to the point of sin: the wife had no birth illnesses and no submission to her husband; for Adam - hard work and inevitable death. The inner, spiritual bliss could hardly have been especially intense among the ancestors, since their spiritual abilities had not yet received that wide revelation and development that is given to both a person and, probably, an angel, in a word, to every spirit, only for centuries. One cannot but agree that the biblical story of paradise, taken in its strict literalness, does not fully satisfy our mental needs, which is the main reason for the critical school to consider it a myth or saga. Primitive man, Adam, although “early,” but more similar to “Heavenly” than we are, in the story appears to have a dwelling almost in common with the animal world, which he with noble pride pushed away from himself even when he felt his loneliness. The inconveniences of a literal understanding of the biblical story of paradise, apparently, inevitably force us to settle on an allegorical understanding of this story. True, St. John Chrysostom sharply condemns this latter understanding: “for this reason, blessed Moses wrote down the very name of the place, so that those who love idle talk could not deceive the simple-minded and say that heaven is not on earth, but in heaven, and spread such fables” 2. The comparative majority of saints understood the story of paradise literally. fathers: Theophilus of Antioch 3, Hippolytus 4, Epiphanius 5. But already St. Gregory the Theologian, no matter how dangerous such an opinion seemed to him for his simply believing time, could not help but admit that a strictly literal understanding of the biblical story about paradise did not satisfy him. “Man,” he says, “God placed in paradise—whatever paradise means—as a maker of immortal plants, perhaps of divine thoughts, both simple and more perfect” 6 . St. becomes even more decisively on the side of the allegorical understanding of the story. Ephraim the Syrian: he directly places paradise in heaven 7. In view of this split of opinions among St. fathers in the matter, the Orthodox Church never spoke out for a literal understanding of the story and did not condemn the allegorical, allegorical understanding. However, the “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by John of Damascus leans toward the first understanding. But 1) it is not unconditionally inclined, as we will see now; 2) this book, no matter how authoritative it is, does not have legally binding force in the Church. There are undoubtedly clearly symbolic features in the story of paradise. This is already the name of the country where he was: “We are going” - “pleasantness”. Then the 4 branches of the Paradise River have an obvious connection with the 4 countries of the world. And the two mysterious trees of paradise cannot be thought of as simple trees. But the allegorical understanding of the story, although it is apparently deeper and is confirmed by some symbolism of the story, has its inconveniences. Much of the story's evidence speaks against him. These are: precise geographical definition; the location of paradise, especially the indication of the Euphrates and the Tigris, forcing one to look for it not far from Mesopotamia; recognition by historical science of the cradle of humanity in Western Asia; a clear indication from the Genesis writer of the presence in paradise of trees growing from the earth, with fruits of a certain taste and type, etc. The difficulty of settling on one of two possible ways of understanding paradise - literal or historical - has long given rise to attempts to combine both understandings. Such an attempt can already be seen in the discussions about heaven in the “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” “I think that the divine paradise was twofold, and therefore the teaching taught by the God-bearing fathers, some of whom represented paradise as sensual, and others as spiritual, is fair.” “With his body, man settled in a blessed and beautiful country, and with his soul he lived incomparably in the highest and most beautiful place, where he had God as his home and bright robe.” “Being well-dissolved and illuminated all around by the finest and purest air, flaunting ever-blooming plants, saturated with incense, filled with light, exceeding the thought of all sensual charm and beauty, paradise is a truly divine place” 8. The most complete and complete system of such a combination of literal and allegorical meaning in the story of paradise is given by the later interpreters in the commentary of Lange 9. For each of the main points of the story, a “factual” or “historical” meaning and a “symbolic” meaning are indicated here. a) The Garden of Eden. Historically: the heavenly flower of the earth surrounding newborns, although adults, appearing to be childishly inexperienced people. The point of the genius of the earth, where the divine culture of the earth is united with earthly nature, where fruit trees are noble, grain grows wild, animals are attached to man like domestic animals, man is provided with an abundance of simple food (tree fruits, children's food) with light bodily work and significant spiritual growth. Symbolic meaning: standing in general in accordance with pure, peaceful, joyful and blissful people, the pure, peaceful, joyful and blissful peace of God or the external, tangible presence of God near people corresponding to internal communication with God. In particular: 1) heavenly inclinations of the earth, irrigated paradise soil; 2) objective heavenly moments on earth, as well as subjective ones in the view of the children's world and festively minded people; 3) the promised land, the dedication of the land through salvation; 4) the kingdom of glory (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 11:14); 5) the earth glorified for future union with heaven (2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 20 et seq.). b) Paradise Rivers. Historically. Phison means Phasis, standing in connection with the anciently famous land of gold, Colchis. Gihon (Hebrew “giya” to break through = αράττω) Araks; the country of Cush through which it flows, the country of the Cossaeans, whom Strabo and Diodorus place in the vicinity of Media and the Caspian Sea. The location of the other two rivers is certain. Symbolically: the four world rivers in general according to their high significance, as well as the four rivers of life and blessings conditioned by the heavenly homeland of man. c) Trees of Paradise. Historically: abundance around the first people, but simple and adapted to the childhood stage of development; favorite food in front of the eyes, acting ennobling. Symbolically: the wealth and sadness of the pious. d) Two trees among paradise. Historically: nature is at its center, equipped with the same miraculously saving power as with dangerous, somewhat intoxicating plants; the first, like the second, is represented through central, closer, unidentifiable types of plantings. Symbolically. The tree of life is a healing and vital force in nature, in conjunction with the word of God, rising soteriologically to the source of eternal life in Christ, sacramentally to the bread of eternal life. The tree, the knowledge of good and evil - nature is like the tree of temptation everywhere, namely in strong, dangerous and forbidden means of pleasure. Not to mention the particulars and details of this explanation for the biblical story of paradise, which are sometimes very controversial (the rivers of paradise), arbitrary (see the point: “the garden of Eden - historically”) and vague (the same point: “symbolically”), it is all built on a very, so to speak, dangerous assumption of symbolism in actual events. It is true that the Old Testament is filled with events and persons with so-called typological, representative, messianic significance. But the paradise era of human life cannot in any way be subsumed under the concept of the Old Testament: it stands above it. The New Testament itself can be looked at as the restoration of the heavenly covenant of God with people in place of the Old Testament, based on circumcision and the law. Symbolism, as it were, takes something away from the real existence of a thing, depriving this existence of independence and self-worth. Not only the Old Testament sacrifices and all the rituals had power and significance, as is well explained by St. Paul, only in Christ and through Christ, but also a whole series of historical figures and events in the Old Testament took place and existed only as a preparation for Christ, and not in themselves and for themselves. In this respect, the entire Old Testament was somewhat reminiscent of the so-called symbolic actions of the prophets, which in themselves, taken without the idea put into them, had no meaning. This is not what the life of mankind was like before the Fall. She was too full of reality to need symbolism. From assimilating the story about paradise with symbolic meaning is one step to denying the actual, historical meaning behind this story. If paradise in the biblical story about it means the entire primitive world, its rivers - life and blessing, its trees - "the contentment of the godly", the tree of knowledge - earthly pleasures, then all this, in order to achieve its goal, could only exist in one story. Historical, real existence is unnecessary for this purpose. The picture of heavenly life is reduced to a symbolic shell of the true reality hiding underneath it, and the historical-symbolic explanation of heavenly life imperceptibly turns into a purely allegorical one. Apparently, the writer of everyday life did not need to resort to allegory in this case. Whether by oral tradition from the forefathers themselves, or by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, he could know the true way of life in paradise and had no motivation to hide it from posterity. But there was something that did not allow the Writer of Genesis to give us a clear idea of ​​​​paradise. Sin was too great a revolution, a disturbance in the entire universe, not to radically change what it directly affected, namely human consciousness. The most dangerous and serious type of deception is when the lie almost borders on the truth. If a lie is too far from the truth, then it immediately reveals its disgusting nature to us and loses its charm. The tempter of our ancestors, if he achieved such success, was only because he acted on the basis of this psychological law. By promising Eve a special kind of knowledge from eating the forbidden fruit, he lied close to the truth. He was right in that with sin a whole revolution was about to occur in the consciousness and knowledge of man. That “knowledge of evil” that he promised the ancestors is not only an experimental knowledge of sin: such knowledge as purely negative (sin is death, i.e. denial of reality) could not give anything new to man. And God himself acknowledges that through eating the forbidden fruit, something new came into the knowledge of the first parents. Obviously, by the knowledge of evil we mean something more than the experimental knowledge of sin. What exactly is meant by this, the answer to this can be given by the actual nature of our present knowledge, knowledge of fallen humanity. The soul is first of all a self-conscious being. Self-awareness is its main property. If sin turned everything upside down in a person’s soul, then it should have affected, first of all, the consciousness, the mind of a person, and changed his entire character. And we see that the whole real cast of the human mind, the nature of its knowledge, excites no less complaints, at least among deep philosophical minds, than the moral level of humanity. Epistemology has long proven that we do not know the essence of things, but only their phenomena, by which we can only judge essences to the same extent as by smoke about fire, that is, we can only know that the essence exists, but not what it is. We only have to admit the thought (and this thought is persistently required by the entire biblical story about the Fall) that the consciousness of man was affected by sin, and it could not help but be affected strongly and deeply, in order to recognize the line between human life before the Fall and after that is impassable for our knowledge, perhaps to the extent that the line between our earthly and afterlife states is impassable for knowledge. The Holy Scripture repeatedly calls the blessed life beyond the grave paradise, and therefore considers it essentially homogeneous with the life of our ancestors in paradise (“Today you will be with me in paradise,” “caught up into paradise,” etc.). And St. Ephraim was so. to some extent he is right in placing heaven in heaven and identifying it with it 10. Heaven, as the blessed state of the righteous after death, is therefore the return to the soul and consciousness of man of what was lost by the forefathers. And just as our thought, with all its efforts, is able to imagine the afterlife only in purely sensual colors, under the image of “villages”, “abodes”, so it must think of the primitive life of man in paradise in ideas that are obviously incommensurate with it, just like what took place during its fall. It is true that if the earth before the Fall was earth, then there should have been trees, rivers, snakes, etc. on it. But whether they were the same for human consciousness, the same magnitudes as they are now, is a big question. Meanwhile, the Writer of Life outlines a little answer to this question, and the answer is negative. Isn’t it strange that the famous rivers of paradise are called “emanating” precisely from their mouth? Let us then pay attention to the emergence of a feeling of shame in the first parents at the sight of what they saw before sin. The expression of the Writer of Life, “the eyes of both were opened,” and this feeling of one’s nakedness well show in which direction the knowledge of the ancestors has changed and what came to him with sin. Before the sin it was more ideological; after the sin it became more sensual, rational, and superficial. From the essence of things it turned to their phenomena. The world appeared before them in the nakedness of its materiality, which obscured its spiritual essence, its ideological content. Their eyes were indeed opened, but at what in existence it is better not to look at: its materiality and chaos, spiritualized and ordered by ideas, ultimate goals. From time to time, in fallen man (especially redeemed) knowledge and consciousness appear that far exceeds the type that is now common among us. This happens, for example, with geniuses who see in the world what is hidden from limited minds. According to one poetic characterization of Goethe, he And I understood the conversation of tree leaves, And I felt the vegetation of the grass, The starry book was clear to him, And the sea wave spoke to him 11. This characteristic gives some idea of ​​that kind of knowledge, different from the real one, which a person can obviously possess by nature, but which is obscured from him by gross materiality, the so-called “appearance of a thing” in philosophy. Having established such a general principle for explaining the biblical story of paradise, individual particulars and details of this short story will not present any difficulties. In the present case, we will focus on the most significant part of the story, namely its first half (Gen. 2:4-10), since the second half, the geographical data of the story, as shown by the example of Delitzsch 12, can provide material for an entire book. The greatest difficulty in this section, after its data on heaven itself, is the return to what was completely completed in Chapter 1. and 2, 1–3 creation stories. Interpreters have long established that 2 ch. Genesis from its 4th verse is completely independent and, as it were, independent of Chapter I. the department of the book, as its title “toledot” already shows, is actually “genealogy”, the word that the LXX translates βίβλος γενέσεως, “book of Genesis”, i.e. they put over the department the same title that they have for the entire book 13 . This title shows that the story contained in the section represents such a complete whole that it can form a special book and, in any case, can be read and understood without the previous part of the book, without Chapter I. Genesis. It is very possible that it was written by Moses independently and separately from Gen. 1 and 2, 1–3, and only during the final editing of the entire book did he put it in connection with Chapter 1. and after it 14. Lange already noted that 2 ch. Genesis tells the story of creation from a completely different point of view than the 1st, which is why it tells it in a different way, precisely the opposite one compared to Chapter 1. ok. The genesis of the earth is presented here not according to the principle of the temporal sequence of phenomena, but so that man, as a principle, is placed at the beginning, where he could be placed as the goal of the earthly world (according to Aristotle, the posterius in the phenomenon is the prius in idea). The paradise world, to the extent that it unites the opposition of heaven and earth, connects earth with heaven, is the main idea of ​​the second chapter. Having entitled the section “this is the origin of heaven and earth,” the writer further speaks of one earth (hence the further rearrangement: “when the Lord God created earth and heaven”), obviously not believing there was a significant difference between it in its then state (paradise earth) and heaven. And he had the right to do this, if what was said earlier about the state of man (actually his consciousness and self-awareness) in paradise is true. Further, the writer of everyday life indicates from what moment in this section of his book (according to LXX directly in the “book”) he intends to give a genealogy (toledot) of the “heavenly” land: from the time preceding any culture on it, when there were no plantings and growths of the “field” on it 15 (the double repetition of the word in the vicinity of erez “earth” is significant: field, “sade” is thought of as part of the earth, part cultivated). The writer of everyday life says more definitely that he will depict the “origin”, give a “pedigree” (toledot) of every large and small growth of the field: “bush” 16 and “grass” 17. These subtle (and skinny 18) products of the field, says the Writer of Genesis, could not appear on earth immediately after its creation by God. For their appearance, two essential conditions were then lacking: rain and man, irrigating the fields with rain and man cultivating them. Since the rain is sent by God (“the Lord God shall not rain on the earth”), then God and man, to the latter’s greatest honor, are presented here as two mutually assisting figures and the creators of real culture (in the highest sense of the word, in the sense of ennobling) the earth. Without God it would not have its productive power. Without humans, nature would go wild 19. Rain (Heb. matar), irrigating the earth, and man cultivating it, therefore, are later phenomena on earth. At least initially they did not have exactly their current appearance, which is why the original land with its culture was not the same as it is now. The land was originally irrigated, or rather abundantly watered (Heb. schaca, stronger than matar) through some kind of ed. The word is ἄπαξ λεγόμενον (still only in Job 36, 27), the meaning of which is lost (especially the later meaning) and which, by guesswork, is conveyed differently by different translators: LXX, Peshito and others - “river”, Targum “cloud”, the newest interpreters - “fog”, “steam”. The first of the meanings is close to the meaning of the Babylonian food - “stream” 20. In addition to this mysterious food, the culture of the then virgin land had to be maintained by man, created by God from it, the earth (as “from the earth came” and food), revived by the breath of God. At the same time, it goes without saying that man with this breath of God, not yet suppressed through sin, was as different from present-day man as he was from rain and as his special residence on earth, paradise, which is described below, is from present-day fields with their “shrubs” and grains. Now the writer of everyday life must talk about this place of primitive man, which was also an example of the then culture of the earth. Far from the idea of ​​not only describing it in detail, but also describing it in any way, he indicates only the essential features of paradise, which cannot and should not give a clear idea of ​​it (essentially impossible here), but only outline a purely abstract concept, or rather the idea of ​​it. Nevertheless, the writer of everyday life (or more precisely, the paternal legend that he used here as a source) needed some word to designate this location of primitive man, just as he designated with a certain word the mysterious method of irrigating the then land. As the most suitable word here, he chose the word gan, actually “vegetable garden”, “garden” (Deut. 11:10). Whether this name conveys the idea that the residence of primitive man was something strictly isolated and isolated on the land that was not yet rich in vegetation (like an oasis on it), or whether it indicates the internal content of this place, reminiscent of a vegetable garden or garden, is difficult to decide in view of our unfamiliarity with the ancient Hebrew language. It is best, of course, to rely on the most ancient understanding of this word, which is the translation of it in the LXX through παράδειος, the word, however, is not purely Greek, but foreign to the Greek language, judging by the Persian peridaeza (in the Zend-Avesta) and the later Hebrew pardes (Song. 4, 13; Eccl. 2, 5; Neh. 2, 8), meaning approximately a park. With this understanding of Heb. gan in LXX, trees are conceived as an essential feature of paradise, in full agreement with the further description of it by Moses. A tree is the highest, culminating point of the plant kingdom, in which the plant reaches its completion and in which the earth invests the greatest amount of its nutritious juices. As such, it is the best representative of all the nutritional and life-giving power of the earth, its plant and organic power. This force in the earth is quite sufficient not only to support all organic life, but also to support the infinite: for thousands of years the earth has been producing and feeding billions of living beings. It is enough to support such a subtle organic life as human life. Wouldn't it really be enough for the endless continuation of individual human life, which nevertheless requires less of this force than the centuries-old collective life of organisms fed by the earth? It would be quite enough if there were a different distribution of this power on earth, other ways and conditions for using it. This different distribution of the life-giving power of the earth was on it before the fall of mankind. It was represented by paradise with its “tree of 21 life,” which was opposed by the tree that destroyed man. So, in essence, the sting of death (and its harbinger - old age) is fragile on earth. “All-honorable Paradise! with the noise of your leaves, pray to the Creator of all, to open the gates that I closed with crime” 22. The initial history of the world and man according to the first pages of the Bible. Kazan. 1906 On the book Genesis, discourse XIII, 6. 3. In hexemer. fragm. ap. Damask. Sacr. par. II, 787. Word 38, for the Nativity of Christ. Wed. poem 7, art. 105. Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk. Die Genesis. Bielefeld u. Leipz. 1877. S. 80 f. The same identification can be seen in the church service for Cheese Week, dedicated to the memory of the “expulsion of Adam” from paradise (and this service is an expression of the Church’s view on this subject). It calls paradise “the glory of the righteous, the beauty of the prophets, and the dwelling place of the saints” (verse 2 on “I have called to the Lord”) and the prayer is repeated many times: “Having called me, bring me again into paradise.” Baratynsky. To Goethe's death. Wo lag das Paradies? Leipzig, 1881. The title “toledot” appears several more times in the book of Genesis and is now used to divide this book into its most natural parts. Although this opinion about Chapter 2. Genesis was first expressed by rationalists, but it, without those conclusions that they arbitrarily associate with it (about the various authors of chapters 1 and 2 - the Elohist and the Jehovahist), is also acceptable for the Orthodox interpreter. This look at the method of compiling the book. Genesis is just as little denied its divine inspiration as the generally accepted assumptions about the final editing of the books of Proverbs, Kings, Chronicles, etc. Heb. sade here is, as the context shows, narrow and may. its original (cf. Numbers 20:17) meaning of a cultivated field. Heb. siach Gen. 21, 15. Job. 30, 7. Heb. esev Gen. 1, 30. Wed. os. Prov. 27, 25, where the word means herbs useful to humans. Siach - about desert bushes; Wed abstract meaning of the word in 1 Samuel. 1, 16; Psalm. 101, 1 ; sorrow. It is remarkable that in the expression “there was no man to cultivate the land” the latter is no longer called erez, but adama in accordance with adam - man, as created for him and his mother (in body). Gunkel, Genesis, Göttingen 1902. Handkommentar zum A. T. Nowack. Note. that “tree” here, as often in the Bible, can also be a collective name. If no one disputes with him for some reason the specific meaning he acquired here for a long time, it is because of the relative indifference of one or another meaning for the general meaning of the legend. Stichera 3 on “I cried to the Lord” on the meat-eating week. You might be interested in: