Pages

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Was Adam's sin merely eating an apple?

I was recently listening to a talk on YouTube by a Protestant who was trying to discredit the Early Church Fathers. One example he gave of how the Church Fathers are unreliable was the claim by certain Church Fathers who said that Adam & Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden was a sexual sin. I understand how this Protestant could be shocked by this claim, because I also recall how outrageous it sounded when I heard it a few years ago. But over time I've began to think about it more, and it seems there is some merit to it. After all, it seems too basic to read the story as merely a sin of eating an apple. While I don't have the time to do much research into this, here are some reflections and details that I've come across over the past few years.

Given that Genesis is full of Hebrew idiom, nuance, and euphemism, a surface-level "plain English" reading can only take our understanding of the text so far. We need to have a mind for what the ancient Hebrews heard and thought when they read Genesis. For example, consider what is said on the fourth day of creation, when God creates the sun, moon, and stars, saying: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years." (Gen 1:14). A surface level reading here would have us see the sun, moon, and stars as mere clocks to tell the time of day, month, and year. But the term here for "seasons" is not what we think of when we hear the term "seasons," since this is not the Hebrew word for winter, spring, summer, and fall. Rather, the term "seasons" here is the Hebrew term uniquely used for Liturgical Festivals. With this in mind, we can see God's plan was to build a Liturgical Calendar right into Creation, with Adam & Eve participating fully in the Liturgical Life. This also means that Liturgy is something deeply important to God, and as I've noted in a few prior posts, True Worship is man's highest duty.

One of the great discussions that theologians throughout history have had is whether the Son of God would have taken on human nature if Adam had never sinned. There is no "official" answer, and there decent arguments both ways, but St Thomas and many others lean towards the conclusion that the Son would have become Incarnate even if Adam didn't sin. This is largely based upon the idea that the Incarnation is not a Plan B or afterthought of God's plan, since God does not change His plans, and thus the Incarnation was meant to happen all along. Though I've not come across anyone who has brought this up, I think that Ephesians 5 lends strong credibility to the idea the Son was intended to become Incarnate all along. St Paul is talking about the union of husband and wife in this passage, but includes the following detail:
Eph 5: 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
In this passage, Paul brings up the famous passage of Genesis 2:24, about a man leaving his father and mother to be joined to his wife. But rather than this being a surface level reading of Genesis 2:24, St Paul tells us this is a "profound mystery," which is certainly 'theologically heavy' language, saying this passage refers to Jesus and the Church. The location of this verse in Genesis 2 is noteworthy because it comes prior to Adam and Even falling into sin in Genesis 3. Thus, to me, it seems like the Incarnation was part of prophecy in Genesis 2, prior to Adam sinning, and thus was intended all along.

With that in mind, various theologians throughout the centuries have reasoned that a chief reason why Satan wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was in order to disrupt the Incarnation. Indeed, this seems to be what the Bible is saying when commenting upon Creation:
Wisdom 2: 23 For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.
Why would Satan be envious of humans? Humans were created by God to be "lower than the angels" (Heb 2:7-9), so Satan being an angel was by his very angelic nature higher than humans. The common claim that Satan was prideful and wanted to be worshiped instead of God isn't that satisfying, in my opinion. Angels are very intelligent by nature, and I don't think Satan was dumb enough to think a creature like himself could take God's place. Rather, it makes more sense that Satan was jealous, or better yet baffled, as to why God would seemingly 'pervert' the created order of things, namely by raising humanity above the angelic nature. The Incarnation would have done just that, passing by the angelic nature, uniting the Divine to the (lesser) human nature, and thus elevating it above the angelic. (Could this be why God often prefers those lower in society, such as the poor and sick, to raise them up? Could this be why there is often a dispute between older and younger in the Bible?)

Thus, it seems most reasonable, and precisely what Wisdom 2:24 is getting at, to say Satan's jealousy of the Incarnation is what led to death entering the world. Satan reasoned that if he could introduce sin and death into humanity, to make humanity fall, this would disrupt the Incarnation. Indeed, this seems to be a common theme in the Bible, where Satan is constantly trying to prevent the Incarnation. For example, the firstborn sons who were the biological lineage of the Incarnation are often shown to be turning to sin, especially God's "firstborn son" the Israelite nation (Ex 4:22-23) often being unfaithful to their covenant. If the Messianic lineage is lost, such as what seems to be the reason of highlighing Onan's sin in Genesis 38, or if the Israelite's break their covenant, then it seems Satan would have succeeded in disrupting the Incarnation. But God was always one step ahead of Satan, making for an amusing read for us all, though hidden in the Old Testament (especially Genesis) until the Annunciation.

So where has this long brain-dump taken us? I think it is quite reasonable to say that the sin of Adam & Eve was a combination of Liturgical sin and Sexual sin, since these two themes are certainly present, even if you heave to read beyond the surface level of the text.

Liturgically speaking, we already have the Liturgical Calendar mentioned earlier on. We can also see that Adam was a kind of high-priest in the Garden, a firstborn of God's creation, even the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), and thus we can detect a clear parallel between Adam and the Second Adam, Jesus (Heb 1:6; Col 1:15). Some have said that the instructions "do not eat" sound a lot like a Liturgical Fast, wherein one day the food would be available to eat. And as for Genesis 1-2, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the Creation Story as a "liturgical poem" (CCC#1079) as if to say the deeper point of the Creation story was a Liturgical Manual for Adam to render proper Worship to God. I don't think it is an accident that immediately after Adam fell into sin, the Genesis story goes onto talk about true versus false worship between older Cain and younger Abel. Nor is it an accident that liturgy is the subject of Seth, who replaces Abel (see HERE).

Sexually speaking, I don't think it is an accident that sexual sin is the most prominent sin in the Bible, including in the early parts of Genesis. Sexual sin has a way of causing all kinds of problems for oneself and for others. The very context of Adam & Eve's sin was about being fruitful and multiplying, as well as a man "clings to his wife and the two become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). The first thing we are told when Adam & Eve sinned is that they realized they were naked, which is a very sexually charged statement. Even the immediate detail that they sewed "fig leaves" (Gen 3:7) doesn't seem like an accident, since some have suggested the fig was understood as an aphrodisiac in the ancient world, and the fig even looks sexual. When it comes to Paul explaining the sin of Eve, he seems to say Satan "seduced" Eve:
2Cor11: 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Notice the sexual theme prominent here: spousal jealousy, betrothal, husband, pure virgin. Some fringe Protestant groups have tried to say Satan had sex with Eve or at least lusted after her, but this doesn't seem credible for various reasons. But it does fit well with the evidence already discussed above, with Adam & Eve's sin involving sexual impurity.

I'm not sure what else to say at the moment, but it is worth concluding by noting that throughout the Bible sexual sin is often linked to false worship. And the Bible seemingly begins and ends by talking about marriage, first between Adan & Eve, then with Jesus & His Bride the Church. Both of which further strengthens this thesis that the Original Sin was a combination of liturgical-sexual sin, not the mere eating of fruit.

12 comments:

Nick said...

One nugget I just came across was from Exodus 19, when God is consecrating the Israelites for sacred liturgical duties, to make them a "kingdom of priests" (Ex 19:6). As part of the instructions, God says:

"Ex 9: 14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people; and they washed their garments. 15 And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."

Notice how this preparing oneself for sacred liturgical duty includes "do not go near a woman," meaning that the men must abstain from sexual relations. This ties in the sexual purity with liturgical purity theme within the above post, and could easily tie into the Adam & Eve situation as well. Maybe they were called to abstain for a time while Adam did sacred liturgical duties in the Garden, and after this consecration he could proceed to "be fruitful and multiply" with Eve?

Anonymous said...

Nick, check out Pitre and Bergsma's Introduction to The Old Testament. In their chapter on Leviticus, you will see a detailed exposition of how the concepts of the holy and profane and the clean and unclean are logically interwoven and are linked to ritual contact with elements of life and death. Fully understood, these themes can be seen to obey a clear thematic logic which sheds light on how sanctification is to be understood, even in the context of the New Testament. (You will find a lot that dovetails with your earlier musings on the biological themes in Paul). The long and the short of it is that uncleanness precludes holiness, and insofar as the sexual act involves the exercise of the generative power, it involves the participant in ritual contact with the unclean, and in a way that precludes being set apart in holiness. (And not, as some naifs might conclude, because "sex is dirty" - it runs deeper than that). Check it out.

Mark Thimesch said...

Another great post, Nick!

Thanks a bunch!

Nick said...

Anonymous, I would be very interested in reading more about that. Now that you mention it, I do recall how the first half of Leviticus is dedicated to Sacrificial/Liturigical matters while the second half is dedicated to sexual purity. I will look into getting that book but any links to online articles will be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

I don't have any online links- but the essay on Leviticus in that volume very clearly and methodically lays out the relationships between cleanliness, holiness, life, and death. They are not merely thematically related or associated- there is discernable logical relationship between them that emerges upon a proper understanding of Leviticus. Without this understanding in place, a lot of ceremonial implications of things such as fluids, blood, touching dead things etc. will remain opaque. And, as noted, it shed light on way sanctification and cleanliness are to be understood in the New Testament as well. When it says in Revelation that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" this is clear reference to a spiritualized understanding of the same relationships between cleanliness and holiness that are present in Leviticus.

Nick said...

Astonishing passage I came across tonight as I was trying to fall asleep:

////////////Gen16:2 And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. 5 And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!”/////////////////


The context here is that of God telling Abraham to keep waiting for the promised Son. This whole passage seems to parallel the Garden of Eden. Adam is told not to eat the fruit, assuming there's a sexual element here, the fruit would also suggest a son. But Sarah is tired of waiting and wants to take matters into her hands, kind of like how Eve became deceived first. Then Sarah literally puts Hagar before Abraham to the perversion of their marriage, since this introduced polygamy. Kind of like how Eve gave Adam the fruit to eat. Then it says Abraham obeyed his wife, just as Adam obeyed Eve. Sounds like a perversion of the headship of marriage. Once Abraham sinned, their eyes were opened to the consequences, just as Adam and Eve's eyes were opened. The result was a bitter tension introduced between the couple. Wow.

Hugo said...

Hi Nick,

This is a very interesting topic, and I think is worth digging deeper.

Let me add some reflections that can probably help open new trails:

1. The fact that the symbol of the covenant was between God and Abraham was circumcision is very telling (Paul calls this the sign of righteousness in Rom 4:11), and it ties with the sexual sin between Abram and Hagar that springs from not believing the promise of God. Covenant has been defined by some theologians as "the extension of kinship by oath". So, it is as if God is showing Abraham that in order to become his family again, he needs to cut off a part of his sexual organ. Since this is a painful procedure, it seems also both a penance and also a very effective remainder of the cause of Abram's transgression.

2. In Col 2:11 Paul says that we have been circumsized with a circumsicion made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumsion of Christ. Considering the point above, it seems to me that Paul sees circumsicion as the removal of the body of flesh, which in his writings refer to our sinful, fallen nature. But circumsicion originally is the removal of a piece of skin (i.e., flesh) that has an effect of allowing us to become covenant members of the family of God. In others words, it is as if the cleaning of our sexual sin (the removal of the body of flesh), is somehow strongly related to our attaining of Habitual Grace.

3. All those levitical laws about sexual discharges and its effects on ritual uncleanness have the connotation that sexuality has been perverted after the fall, and needs to be taken care of before coming in the Presence of the Lord.

4. In the incident of the Golden calf there is a strong hint that there was not only idolatry but also sin of sexual nature: and the people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to PLAY (EXO 32:6 NASB). The word Play is tsachaq in hebrew, and this is the same word "caressing" in Gen 26:8, which clearly has a sexual connotation (Why else Abimelech would say after witnessing that "Behold, certainly she is your wife"). So, here we have not only the breaking of the first commandment but also sins of sexual nature (again) as well.

5. I have always find it to be very interesting that after the incident with Hagar in Gen 16, the first thing we see in Gen 17 is God's command to Abraham: "Walk before me and be blameless"...and a few verses after that we see the ritual of circumcision.

I hope those remarks can help. But certainly there is a lot of evidence pointing out in the direction of your theory.

Pax Christi.

Hugo.

Nick said...

I should add that "be fruitful and multiply" is really the only command that God gives them, which is a very sexually charged commandment.

Nick said...

I will also add that Christ's work is portrayed as loving his wife to the utmost, which implies Adam fell short of this.

Nick said...

I might even suggest that Paul calling Adam a Type of Jesus could suggest Jesus was going to come whether or not Adam sinned.

Nick said...

I came across another interesting parallel with the life of Noah in Genesis 9:

///1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. . . . 20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard.[c] 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.///

After the Flood, there are clear parallels with Noah of a Re-Creation similar to the Creation with Adam. In Genesis 8, Noah is seen as the new head of humanity and a priest offering sacrifice. In the above quote, God gives a primary directive, to be "fruitful" and fill the earth with offspring, just like God told Adam. Noah is also depicted as growing an impressive Garden-Vineyard, and being in charge of it, just like Adam. And Noah is tasting the "fruit" (grapes/wine), even indulging and getting drunk, kind of like how Adam was to be careful with what he ate. As a result, Noah gets drunk and his son Ham ends up "seeing his father's nakedness," which is a Hebrew idiom meaning having sexual relations with your mother. Leviticus 18:7-8 explains: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness." So there was sexual sin involved in this "fall of Noah", which has a lot of parallels with the "fall of Adam".

So, based on this parallel, we can certainly envision some kind of sexual impropriety, such as Adam and Eve having unnatural sexual actions (e.g. masturbation) or having natural sex at an inappropriate time.

Nick said...

I will add that Adam is understood as the "father" of all humanity, wherein Paul can say "in Adam all die, while in Christ all are made alive" (1Cor15:22). This suggests that birth is how the sin is passed down, which would fit with the idea that sex was at the root of Adam's sin, while the New Testament frequently describes our salvation as a "new birth" (from a chaste parental figure, Jesus who gave all for His Bride, the Church).