I’m sure this has been addressed somewhere before, but I couldn’t find it in a fairly thorough search of the archives. So…
Though I could be mistaken, my impression is that, according to Christianity, the idea of sex was introduced into the world only after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and that sexual desire is a direct result of the sin.
Therefore, if (as would have ideally happened) they had not sinned, how would Adam and Eve have reproduced? Does Christianity have an explanation as to how the human race would have been expanded? Would this ideal world have contained only Adam and Eve, living forever as the sole people on Earth, or would they have had children somehow?
I pondered posting this elsewhere, but I was wary of putting a thorny religious issue in GQ. Still, I’m not really looking for a debate on the merits of the idea of Original Sin or about the various answers people might give; I’m just looking for any explanations that might have been offered by any Christian authorities to solve this problem.
All the Bible says on the subject is that they became ashamed of their nakedness; many people will argue that the forbidden fruit is just a metaphor for sex; maybe it is (although it’s far from clear), or maybe they should listen to Dr Freud.
As far as Would Have’s are concerned, modern Protestant theology sort of tends to sidestep them, often arguing that it all unfolded exactly as God anticipated it would, so what might have happened is irrelevant or unanswerable.
I don’t think you’re going to find any single answer on which some large number of Christians will agree. Augustine of Hippo toyed with the idea that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually a metaphor for sexual “knowledge” so that the first sin was actually sex. ('Course, Augustine had a lot of issues with sex because of his background.)
Others may hold different views. And, of course, those who hold that the story of Eden is a myth to explain the tendency of all humans to sin, rather than an event that dropped a load of sin on humanity, do not even spend time to consider your question.
Genesis 2:24 makes reference to a man leaving his mother and father and cleaving to his wife before the fruit is eaten (in Gen 3:6), so the idea that the fruit represents sex is bushwah-balderdash. The concept of a human mother and father would have been meaningless to Adam and Eve (at that moment, the only humans on Earth) unless they had some idea of the concept of human reproduction.
The original sin is disobedience, and thus is no different from the Pandora myth. The wages of sin isn’t that we have sex; it’s that we feel ashamed of it, while animals just casually go on about their business unaware of the concepts of good and evil.
My understanding of the scriptures is that the sin was actually the literally eating of the fruit, aka disobedience to the command of God, and that Sex was in no way wrong. Most Christian I know wouldnt say anything is wrong with Sex or the desire thereof as long as it is inside of marriage, some actually seem to think its a Gift from God and supposed to be enjoyed.
As I understand Christian doctrine, “original sin” does not refer to the sin of Eve and Adam, it refers to the sinfulness, the spiritual pollution, that every human is born with because of their sin. I.e., it’s a hereditary condition. Am I wrong on that point?
Yes and no. In Catholic theology the term “original sin” is used to refer both to the sin of Adam and Eve and the inherent sinfulness of mankind that resulted from it.
I’m inclined to think you are mistaken. Perhaps some Christians believe that, but “Christianity” as a whole doesn’t.
I get the distinct impression that there was, or was supposed to be, reproduction before The Fall. To back up this claim, I would cite God’s command in the first creation story, in Genesis 1, that people be fruitful and multiply, and the fact that among the penalties for eating the forbidden fruit are “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing” (Genesis 3:16), implying that it’s the pain involved and not the childbearing itself that’s different. And I see no reason to believe that the pre-Fall reproduction wasn’t supposed to be sexual.
The impression I get from the Biblical account is that sex, like work, was part of the original order of things, but after the Fall they were rendered painful, difficult, and burdensome.
I’m afraid that I can’t provide a specific cite from one of the Church Fathers or a theologian to back this up (does Milton count? If so, I’ll use him), but one common view is that Lust - an excess of sexual desire - was part of the general “package” of sin that came with the Fall, but sexual desire in itself isn’t sinful.
All of the Seven Deadly Sins are excesses of a natural, healthy, desire - Gluttony is an excessive desire for food, but Adam and Eve still ate before the Fall.
Is it possible that, from a Christian viewpoint, before the Fall, sex was thought of as only being for reproductive purposes, while the desire for sex in and of itself is considered a result of the sin?
Or am I completely off?
Does anyone have a cite for a Christian authority (any sect) saying that sex was part of the original plan? Because I’d always thought that Christianity held otherwise. Then again, I’m Jewish. ;j What do I know?
Milton? Heck no! Even Aquinas’s musings must be subordinate to the source. It is best to consider what God has to say on the matter–and what the bible has to say about original sin vis a vis sexual relations.
Mankind was put on the earth in paradise conditions with no expectation of death. They were told to “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” (Gen 1:28)
There are some who hold the view that the “forbidden fruit” represents sexual relations and that sex was prohibited. Does the account say that? On the contrary. Sexual relations are part and parcel to ‘becoming many and filling earths.’ Adam and Eve were commanded to populate the earth—and sex is/was part that divine command.
Further the first mention of A/E having sexual intercourse is only after they were expelled from Eden. (Gen 2:17; 3:17,23; 4:1)
Later, in the immediate aftermath of the flood, God uses the exact words to bless Noah, and once again commands Noah to procreate. (Gen 9:1)
Sex was not only not restricted or prohibited, it was actually commanded by God.
As to sex itself, the bible is consistent throughout that it is a provision for not only procreation, but the bible acknowledges that it is also a [pleasurable] expression of love, reserved for married couples. (1 Cor 7:2-5, Pr 5:19)(also see 1 Thess 4:3-8, Eph. 5:5 and others)
At any rate, unlawful sexual realtions are a sin, but there is no direct link between sex and “original sin.” IOW, unlawful sexual relations have no more relevance to original sin than stealing, covetnous or murder.
The Raindog describes traditional Christian teaching extremely well above.
I might note that there is a distinction between an appetite, a natural and God-given part of being alive and human, and a vice, the perversion of that appetite to sinful ends. It’s natural for a human being to feel sexual desire; that’s a part of what causes romantic love and marriage, procreation and the continuation of the race. Lust is considered the perversion of healthy sexual desire into selfish ends, where the “lustee” is not desired as a person but as a sex object, and personal gratification rather than mutual pleasure within a licit relationship is the object.
Final monkey wrench to throw into the works: Celibacy is a charism, a grace given by God to some who for whatever reason are not in a position to marry and do the work He’s set for them. Catholicism, with its priestly celibacy and religious orders, makes a big deal out of it, but its Christianity-wide. The evangelical missionary setting out to a remote and/or dangerous spot may not be able to take a wife and children, so God equips him with the ability to remain chaste and resist temptation. Likewise the professional Naval officer may be granted this grace. This still has nothing to do with original sin, but is important to a theology of sex.
Finally, the much-misunderstood Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The first is an exclusively Catholic doctrine, the second shared by them and the Orthodox. The big deal here is that Mary, having been specially chosen by God to bear His Son, is not about to let her genitalia be used for any lesser use. Hence although she and Joseph could easily have, uh, engaged in marital carnal knowledge of each other without sin, they chose not to, remaining celibate for life, to honor that special use God had made of her. For Catholics, the idea that Mary was specially preserved from original sin, by a miracle of prevenient grace (Jesus’s salvation working backwards in time, so to speak), is a dogma. And because according to Paul a couple who joins in sexual intercourse becomes “one flesh” this would mean that Mary having quite licit sex with Joseph would be joining her preternaturally-protected-from-original-sin flesh to his tainted-by-original-sin flesh in the act. Backup reason why they didn’t do the dirty.
But none of that is calling sex itself sinful per se, and certainly not tied into original sin, as others have spelled out already. It merely is an additional element of confusion into a rather complex doctrine.
As mentioned, there’s a command to reproduce prior to the Fall; the immediate post-Fall effect is becoming ashamed of and finding something wrong about their nakedness; and the punishment of the Woman includes increasing the pain of childbirth and that “your desire will be for your husband and he shall rule over you”, IOW your desires will lead you to a position of subjugation. Meanwhile the Man gets condemned to working hard just to eke out subsistence and to be aware of his own mortality.
The Original Sin tends to be viewed as essentially one of disobedience and misguided pride - regardless of the specifics of the action. God said “don’t do pointless thing X”, Man went ahead under the Serpent’s promise that it would make him “like God”, established a pattern that has continued unabated. The more symbolic interpretation of it is that “eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil”, means Man attempting to figure out his own definitions of what was Good or Evil.
In any case, The Fall corrupts Man’s nature. That corruption causes things that were good and harmonious in Eden to be susceptible to misuse, abuse, distortion and pain. Thus the fallen nature leads to man making sex"dirty", obsessing about it from either a lewd or prudish angle, unless he (and she) seek out God’s intent for the right use of sexuality. The various denominations THEN have their various POVs on what THAT is.
Two questions here, as a Protestant. I was always under the impression that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary herself; in other words, she alone of mortals was concieved without sin. I didn’t think it had any connection with the (fairly) universal doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Am I wrong? Secondly, the Bible says quite clearly (Matthew 13:55-56) that Jesus had four brothers (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) and an unspecified number of sisters, which I assume means that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth. If Roman Catholic doctrine is that they remained celibate for life, how do you interpret this verse?
There is that passage in Luke, however, that seems to contradict this: Luke 8:19-21 talks about Jesus’s mother and brethren which has been translated into “mother and brothers” as well. How did these brothers come about if Mary had remained celibate her entire life? It doesn’t seem as if the text is referring to the disciples or other followers of Jesus when it describes brethren either, as Jesus goes on to say “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it”, clearly distinguishing between those who have come to see him and were referred to as his brethren and the “christian brethren” of believers.
Still, I’m no expert on this, and I was taught this by a protestant teacher who possibly had a motive.
Part 1: You have been right all along. The IC means Mary was conceived free from Original Sin. (BTW to abound on Polycarp’s report: Eastern Orthodox are free to believe in the IC if they so do, but it’s not a dogmatic doctrine; the EO teaching on original sin is different than the RC)
Part 2: The various branches of Christianity that subscribe to the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos will tell you that the word “brothers” (adelphoi) in the Gospel is properly meant as “kinsmen”, and it refers to [Pick your fave:] (a) regular old cousins; (b) members of the extended family of Joseph; (c) relatives raised in Joseph’s and Mary’s houselhold, maybe because orphaned; (d) children of Joseph by a prior marriage (nonscriptural legend having him be an older widower); (e) you tell me; hey, they’ve been at it for 1800 years. Remember, when considering this in contrast to the text of Scripture, that in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrine Scripture is not the ultimate source, and the text means what the Church interprets it as meaning.
Thanks very much for the information. Getting a little off-topic here, but am I right in thinking that, on this interpretation, the “Mary the mother of James and Joses” of Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 is not the Virgin Mary? Or is “mother” interpreted in a similarly broad fashion for these verses?
Of course, Protestants, even the more liberal ones among us, have to do a little squirming in the face of some Biblical passages.
