Was Sexual Perversion The Original Sin?

[Ziggamafu]

I'm looking for references from early Christian writings - especially the Fathers - that link the original sin with an abuse of sex. I think Augustine said something about this, and maybe Tertullian as well...but I don't recall where, or if there were others that suggested similar ideas.

Here is why I am researching the topic:

[i]IF the fruit-tree is a metaphor for the first act of sin...[/i]

1. God gives one positive command to Adam & Eve: "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e., procreative sex)
2. God gives one negative command: "don't eat the fruit that gives knowledge of good and evil"
3. The only to know evil - as distinguished from good - is to knowingly violate God's law
4. Therefore, the only way to know sin would have been to violate procreative sex
5. The only way to violate procreative sex for Adam & Eve would have been a perversion such as onanism or oral / anal sex

Other support for this logic may be found in that:

1. The euphemistic metaphors of eating fruit under a tree may be evocative of oral sex (some theologians see similar euphemisms describing foreplay in Song of Songs)
2. After their sin, Adam & Eve display shame focused on their reproductive organs (making cloths)
3. The Hebrew word employed for "know" in reference to the knowledge of evil is the same word used in reference to sex (i.e. "Adam knew Eve, and she conceived a child")
4. Sodomy (if the perversion were anal sex) is one of the very few sins that "cry out to Heaven for vengeance" and sexual sins are generally regarded as particularly severe (c.f. St. Paul, as well as God's punishment for sexual sins in the Old Testament, etc.)
5. Concupiscence from original sin seems especially driven toward the perversion of sex

Now obviously original sin's internal action - the attempt of self-divinization by autonomous individualism - is what motivated the external action, whatever it was, and would have determined corruption from square one. But it would seem reasonable to conclude, from the reasons listed above, that a plausible interpretation of the account of original sin (if one does not interpret the passage as referencing a literal fruit tree) could be sexual perversion.

...which is why I am looking for specific references from the Fathers or any early Christian writing. Does anyone have any references or thoughts for me?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Don't forget that while the positive law of God was given to Adam and Eve regarding fertility, they still also at least had the natural law written on their hearts. That's going to be one possible objection...there are many things in the natural law that are not sexual in nature.

Theology of the Body addresses this topic in one way or another, doesn't it?

I'm inclined to think that the original sin was an act of distrust of God, whereby Adam and Eve did not trust God to grant them a share in His divine nature (they wanting to be like their Creator, naturally) and tried by some means to grasp it for themselves ("you will be like gods" being the devil's temptation). So I'm inclined to think that it was a sin of pride and trying to grasp at something from God. Because it involves a so-called "opening of the eyes," I think it may have been an intellectual pride.

This raises another thought in my mind. I wonder if the story is intentionally vague, so that people of every kind and inclination can see their own temptations and sins in the story. The story strikes me as being a matter of intellectual pride and that is the temptation I struggle with more than anything.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote] From Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5,19: "By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners." The root of the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4,14: "From it (pride) all perdition took its beginning." Eccl. 10,15: "Pride is the beginning of all sin."

The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam's sin as an "inexpressibly great sin" (ineffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c. Jul. I 105).[/quote]

Is Ott stating a personal conclusion here or is this really a formal position of the Church? And is the source that he is citing a magisterial document or some mere theological authority? I can't find it anywhere. Hmm.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' date='12 November 2009 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1258046628' post='2001333']
Don't forget that while the positive law of God was given to Adam and Eve regarding fertility, they still also at least had the natural law written on their hearts. That's going to be one possible objection...there are many things in the natural law that are not sexual in nature.

Theology of the Body addresses this topic in one way or another, doesn't it?

I'm inclined to think that the original sin was an act of distrust of God, whereby Adam and Eve did not trust God to grant them a share in His divine nature (they wanting to be like their Creator, naturally) and tried by some means to grasp it for themselves ("you will be like gods" being the devil's temptation). So I'm inclined to think that it was a sin of pride and trying to grasp at something from God. Because it involves a so-called "opening of the eyes," I think it may have been an intellectual pride.

This raises another thought in my mind. I wonder if the story is intentionally vague, so that people of every kind and inclination can see their own temptations and sins in the story. The story strikes me as being a matter of intellectual pride and that is the temptation I struggle with more than anything.
[/quote]

Definitely pride is the much more universal opinion. But it is usually left at that; yet in a perfect paradise, wouldn't pride be necessarily in play in the original action of sin? In other words, obviously the inward, spiritual rebellion was the heart and force that spawned the outward action of the original sin. I suppose I am reflecting on the outward action itself, which seems bound to the inward action that spawned it (it seems improper to divorce the two, but maybe I'm wrong). I do find your idea fascinating, that it is intentionally vague.

[StColette]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='12 November 2009 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1258041736' post='2001295']
[i]IF the fruit-tree is a metaphor for the first act of sin...[/i]

1. God gives one positive command to Adam & Eve: "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e., procreative sex)
2. God gives one negative command: "don't eat the fruit that gives knowledge of good and evil"
3. The only to know evil - as distinguished from good - is to knowingly violate God's law
4. Therefore, the only way to know sin would have been to violate procreative sex
5. The only way to violate procreative sex for Adam & Eve would have been a perversion such as onanism or oral / anal sex

Other support for this logic may be found in that:

1. The euphemistic metaphors of eating fruit under a tree may be evocative of oral sex (some theologians see similar euphemisms describing foreplay in Song of Songs)
2. After their sin, Adam & Eve display shame focused on their reproductive organs (making cloths)
3. The Hebrew word employed for "know" in reference to the knowledge of evil is the same word used in reference to sex (i.e. "Adam knew Eve, and she conceived a child")
4. Sodomy (if the perversion were anal sex) is one of the very few sins that "cry out to Heaven for vengeance" and sexual sins are generally regarded as particularly severe (c.f. St. Paul, as well as God's punishment for sexual sins in the Old Testament, etc.)
5. Concupiscence from original sin seems especially driven toward the perversion of sex

[/quote]

I see a few flaws here just by reading the verses in their context.

[quote]Therefore, the only way to know sin would have been to violate procreative sex[/quote]

I find this difficult to believe in context of Genesis. When reading Chapter 3, Eve is mentioned alone with the serpent. For some reason Adam is not mentioned in the beginning verses where the conversation between Eve and the serpent takes place. We then see Eve viewing the tree as good for food and taking and eating the fruit. She does this act singularly by herself. She then gives some of the fruit to her husband. Since Eve is acting alone when she eats the fruit are we to presume that she is masturbating? The phrase "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" is making it very difficult to view this as anything sexual. The word "food" here in this verse of Genesis is ma'akal. It means food, fruit, or meat. Every other instance of this word being used (that I've found) references actual food very clearly.


[quote]2. After their sin, Adam & Eve display shame focused on their reproductive organs (making cloths)[/quote]

I did two Exegetical papers in my time at FUS on this very chapter, the last paper being roughly 30 pages long lol. In my reading of numerous commentaries, this verse was always explained as showing the division that has now taken place between man and woman. Before the Fall, there was no division, no guilt, shame, blame, or ill will toward one another. After the Fall, we see man and woman blaming one another for what had transpired. The clothing was to symbolize this division that had now occurred. No more were they fully open to one another as they had been before the Fall.


[quote]The Hebrew word employed for "know" in reference to the knowledge of evil is the same word used in reference to sex (i.e. "Adam knew Eve, and she conceived a child")[/quote]

According to my Hebrew Lexicon there are actually two different words used, not the same one in both instances.

According to my Lexicon the word used to describe the knowledge of evil or the tree of knowledge is Da`ath, which meanings include discernment, perception, understanding, and wisdom.

The word for knew in reference to "Adam knew Eve" is Yada', which can mean to have knowledge of, to know by experience, to make oneself known, etc. This form of "know" is never employed in reference to the fruit or the tree itself. The closest reference is in Gen. 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to [b]know[/b] good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: " and Gen. 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Even if the word "yada'" was used to describe both instances it doesn't really help the case a lot for this possible interpretation. We understand the word "knew" in the quote "Adam knew Eve" to mean that he had sex with her, this is derived from the Hebrew definition of the word "yada'" which can mean "to know by experience". This definition can apply to several different things without there being sexual meaning to it, even if used within the same Book.

That's all I really have for the time being. I'm just struggling to see the proof of this interpretation. I've never come across it in any commentary or writing of Church Fathers.

[Ziggamafu]

Eh. Maybe it is not worth pursuing. I just mused over it while writing a paper on a larger topic and wondered if there was any support for it. Apparently there is some suggestion of it in Ambrose, Origin, Augustine, and Tertullian, but I don't know where. And Ott comes down hard against it.

[Aloysius]

[quote]When reading Chapter 3, Eve is mentioned alone with the serpent. For some reason Adam is not mentioned in the beginning verses where the conversation between Eve and the serpent takes place.[/quote]

3:6... "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband,[b] who was with her,[/b] and he ate it."

The implication is that he was with her throughout the entire conversation, at least that's what I've been told the Hebrew meant by trustworthy sources. he was basically tuning out the whole conversation and failing in his duty, because he should've chimed in and argued the serpent down when he saw Eve was falling victim to the serpent's logic.

but no, the actual sin was one of disobedience and not, IMO, anything to do with sexual sin. it was much more basic than that.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' date='12 November 2009 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1258048217' post='2001346']
I find this difficult to believe in context of Genesis. When reading Chapter 3, Eve is mentioned alone with the serpent. For some reason Adam is not mentioned in the beginning verses where the conversation between Eve and the serpent takes place. We then see Eve viewing the tree as good for food and taking and eating the fruit. She does this act singularly by herself. She then gives some of the fruit to her husband. Since Eve is acting alone when she eats the fruit are we to presume that she is masturbating? The phrase "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" is making it very difficult to view this as anything sexual. The word "food" here in this verse of Genesis is ma'akal. It means food, fruit, or meat. Every other instance of this word being used (that I've found) references actual food very clearly.
[/quote]

You know, for most men, food and sex are rivals for our attention.

Ma'akal...I gotta get me sumathat!

jk


[quote]I did two Exegetical papers in my time at FUS on this very chapter, the last paper being roughly 30 pages long lol. In my reading of numerous commentaries, this verse was always explained as showing the division that has now taken place between man and woman. Before the Fall, there was no division, no guilt, shame, blame, or ill will toward one another. After the Fall, we see man and woman blaming one another for what had transpired. The clothing was to symbolize this division that had now occurred. No more were they fully open to one another as they had been before the Fall.




According to my Hebrew Lexicon there are actually two different words used, not the same one in both instances.

According to my Lexicon the word used to describe the knowledge of evil or the tree of knowledge is Da`ath, which meanings include discernment, perception, understanding, and wisdom.
[/quote]

Hmmm...you have your Hebrew lexicon with you? A little lunch time posting, Jen?

[quote]The word for knew in reference to "Adam knew Eve" is Yada', which can mean to have knowledge of, to know by experience, to make oneself known, etc. This form of "know" is never employed in reference to the fruit or the tree itself. The closest reference is in Gen. 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to [b]know[/b] good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: " and Gen. 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Even if the word "yada'" was used to describe both instances it doesn't really help the case a lot for this possible interpretation. We understand the word "knew" in the quote "Adam knew Eve" to mean that he had sex with her, this is derived from the Hebrew definition of the word "yada'" which can mean "to know by experience". This definition can apply to several different things without there being sexual meaning to it, even if used within the same Book.

That's all I really have for the time being. I'm just struggling to see the proof of this interpretation. I've never come across it in any commentary or writing of Church Fathers.[/quote]

Again, food and sex mix.

Jerry: "But you yada yada-ed the best part!"
Elaine: "No, I mentioned the bisque."

[rkwright]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='12 November 2009 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1258041736' post='2001295']
I'm looking for references from early Christian writings - especially the Fathers - that link the original sin with an abuse of sex. I think Augustine said something about this, and maybe Tertullian as well...but I don't recall where, or if there were others that suggested similar ideas.

Here is why I am researching the topic:

[i]IF the fruit-tree is a metaphor for the first act of sin...[/i]

1. God gives one positive command to Adam & Eve: "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e., procreative sex)
2. God gives one negative command: "don't eat the fruit that gives knowledge of good and evil"
3. The only to know evil - as distinguished from good - is to knowingly violate God's law
4. Therefore, the only way to know sin would have been to violate procreative sex
5. The only way to violate procreative sex for Adam & Eve would have been a perversion such as onanism or oral / anal sex

[/quote]

Something that I'm not getting in your logic.

There are 2 commands that you point out. Be fruitful and don't eat. Seems to me that if you are not fruitful and multiply or if you eat of the tree you have violated the law. Looks like they violated the second one to me?

I don't see how you conclude that the only way they could have sinned was by violating the first command. If they knowingly violated the second law, like they did, haven't they sinned??

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='rkwright' date='12 November 2009 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1258062561' post='2001445']
Something that I'm not getting in your logic.

There are 2 commands that you point out. Be fruitful and don't eat. Seems to me that if you are not fruitful and multiply or if you eat of the tree you have violated the law. Looks like they violated the second one to me?

I don't see how you conclude that the only way they could have sinned was by violating the first command. If they knowingly violated the second law, like they did, haven't they sinned??
[/quote]

If the fruit tree was literal, then the second law was literal and so was the violation. My thoughts were in regards to a metaphorical interpretation. "Knowing evil" would then apply to experiencing the effects of violating the first law. If anyone can clarify the quote from Ott, I would be very grateful. The lexicon I used gave the same root word: יָדַע

[StColette]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='12 November 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1258053817' post='2001377']
3:6... "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband,[b] who was with her,[/b] and he ate it."

The implication is that he was with her throughout the entire conversation, at least that's what I've been told the Hebrew meant by trustworthy sources. he was basically tuning out the whole conversation and failing in his duty, because he should've chimed in and argued the serpent down when he saw Eve was falling victim to the serpent's logic.

but no, the actual sin was one of disobedience and not, IMO, anything to do with sexual sin. it was much more basic than that.
[/quote]

My DRV reads

"6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. "

My Hebrew interlinear reads in a similar fashion. It doesn't say "who was with her" or "with her"

The RSV-CE2 does not translate the verse with "who was with her" in it either.

Only version I've read so far with "who was with her" or "with her" in it is the NAB.

[Apotheoun]

The Septuagint says: "And having taken the fruit of it, she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and they ate."

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 November 2009 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1258074953' post='2001554']
The Septuagint says: "And having taken the fruit of it, she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and they ate."
[/quote]

Interesting, I had Micah look at the Latin for me and it doesn't say "with her" either, it says rough she gave it to "her man". Micah wonders if the "with her" in the Septuagint and NAB could be relational like "she belongs to him" or "he belongs to her" rather than a proximal (ie physically with her or one another).


Either way... I don't see sexual perversion in these verses.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StColette' date='12 November 2009 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1258081127' post='2001701']
Interesting, I had Micah look at the Latin for me and it doesn't say "with her" either, it says rough she gave it to "her man". Micah wonders if the "with her" in the Septuagint and NAB could be relational like "she belongs to him" or "he belongs to her" rather than a proximal (ie physically with her or one another).


Either way... I don't see sexual perversion in these verses.
[/quote]

The only way sexual perversion would be there is if the fruit-tree is a metaphor and the 2nd law is thus directed back toward the first. The only way to violate the first is by sexual perversion of some sort. The sexual perversion would be the outward action of disobedience - the eating of the fruit - motivated by the internal action of pride.

[Brother Adam]

I have no where near as much time as Jennie, but we were just talking about this in Eschatology and Dr. Martin said that the idea that Adam & Eve's sin was sex has been brought up before and has always been rejected based on the biblical evidence. We didn't get into a lot of detail, but it was clear he meant to tell us there was no room for such an interpretation.