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.