How was the fall of man related to lust?

[MrSnaith]

In the first creation story, we have two commands given to man and woman.

Genesis 1:28:

[28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

This is the first command: Increase and Multiply.

The second command: Subdue [the earth], and rule over…] all living creatures.

Put simply, the two commands regard procreation and work.

In the second creation story, we have one explicit command, and two main themes. In Genesis 2, we see the creation of man. In Genesis 3, we see the fall of man.

Genesis 2:16-17:

[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Note that, though this is a single command, there are actually two prescriptions. Thou Shalt eat, and Thou Shalt Not eat.

The two commands from the first creation story find their way here as the two major themes:

Work - Genesis 2:5, and 2:15:

[5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

[15] And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.

Procreation - Genesis 2:18 and 2:22-25:

[18] And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.

[22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

The story is framed in this way: In Genesis 2, God creates Adam for work, but Genesis 1 reveals that man’s primal calling is unitive and procreative love, and work is secondary. But, while man may be able to accomplish work alone, he cannot complete his primal calling alone. In order to be fully human, he must have a beloved, a one to help him be fully human. So God creates such a one.

And right in the middle of this story, between work and procreative love, between the two callings of man, God sets this command: eat of all trees, but don’t eat of this tree, because if you eat of this tree you will die. Work and love are life-oriented activities. And that is the center of this paradise: the tree of life. And God commands them to not eat of this other tree, which causes death.

Then in Genesis 3, we witness the fall: they each partake of the fruit of this tree which God has forbidden. But, what are the consequences? The immediate, natural consequence of the sin is this:

Genesis 3:7 -

[7] And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

Perceiving themselves to be naked is code for “they were ashamed,” recalling Genesis 2:25. That’s the first, natural consequence of sin: shame.

Then, we see consequences declared by God. First to Eve in Gen 3:16 (actually, the first is to the Serpent, but I’m leaving that out):

[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’ s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Note, Eve was created as a response to man’s loneliness. Her calling related specifically to man’s unitive and procreative love. That the consequence for her sin is that she no longer fulfills her unitive destiny (she shall be under her husband’s power) and that bringing forth children is no longer joyful but sorrowful, implies very strongly that she failed in her mission, her calling.

Likewise to Adam in Gen 3:17-19:

[17] And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.

Adam’s work is no longer fruitful. It is difficult and laborious. That the consequence of Adam’s sin is that his work is cursed thus implies very strongly that he failed in his singular mission of work.

Continued…

 

[MrSnaith]

If we understand the Garden itself to be an image of Original Man (and we have good reason to think this. For one, Adam is a Hebrew word that means earth), then we see that the true work that man is called to is self-cultivation. Remember that God created the garden, and planted all the trees, so to tend the Garden is to maintain God’s creation. So, the work we are called to, primarily, is to order our being according to God’s design; to cultivate virtue and holiness, and to protect (tend) it from the intrusion of evil. So this is man’s first sin, he allowed the entry of evil into the Garden. This is why his work is filled with toil after he sins, because concupiscence makes the cultivation of virtue and the warding-off of evil more difficult.

The nature of the sin, though, is the real question. All sins are acts of disobedience. So, saying that the original sin was an act of disobedience doesn’t really tell us much. Moreover, all sin is rooted in pride, the underlying belief that one knows better than God what will make one happy and fulfilled, about what is good and evil. So, saying that the original sin was an act of pride also doesn’t really tell us much. Of course, both of these things are true. The first sin was an act of unmitigated pride and disobedience. But, as with all sin, there has to be a movement of the will, an action involved, and that’s the real question here.

The symbol of the tree is just that, it’s a literary device, an icon for a deeper reality. When we eat anything, the act of eating is to take something into ourselves and assimilate it into our very being. That’s what we’re seeing here. The forbidden act is to take sin (whatever it is) into ourselves, to unite ourselves to it, to make it a part of us. This act that we’re seeing in Genesis is an act of total commitment of will. So, the tree itself doesn’t reveal the nature of this sin.

If there is to be any revelation here, it has to reside with the one who found the fruit to be a delight to behold, something desirous; Eve. We know her mission, and we know that she failed in it. It is this, I believe, that leads some to think that the first sin was some form of sexual sin.

We know man’s primal mission is to unitive, procreative love. This is the first command we are given. Moreover, it is exactly what makes us image God the most. God is love, because within His being is an inner dynamic of self-giving love from a lover to the beloved, and life comes from that.

Man’s failure wasn’t partial. It was complete. Our first parents failed wholly and completely in their call to image God. Thus, we might reasonably conclude that they did so through some sexual act, because it is in the sexual act that we find the summit of the expression of unitive love between husbands and wives.

Of course, because the act itself has not been recorded in Scripture, the Church cannot affirm one way or the other, beyond what it says about the fundamental nature of this sin (pride, disobedience), what the sin was. So, it does not teach this. But there have been Catholic mystics who say that the first sin was indeed sexual.

But you are not in any way required to believe this as a Catholic.

Cheers!

 

[ameliepoir]

If we understand the Garden itself to be an image of Original Man (and we have good reason to think this. For one, Adam is a Hebrew word that means earth), then we see that the true work that man is called to is self-cultivation. Remember that God created the garden, and planted all the trees, so to tend the Garden is to maintain God’s creation. So, the work we are called to, primarily, is to order our being according to God’s design; to cultivate virtue and holiness, and to protect (tend) it from the intrusion of evil. So this is man’s first sin, he allowed the entry of evil into the Garden. This is why his work is filled with toil after he sins, because concupiscence makes the cultivation of virtue and the warding-off of evil more difficult.

The nature of the sin, though, is the real question. All sins are acts of disobedience. So, saying that the original sin was an act of disobedience doesn’t really tell us much. Moreover, all sin is rooted in pride, the underlying belief that one knows better than God what will make one happy and fulfilled, about what is good and evil. So, saying that the original sin was an act of pride also doesn’t really tell us much. Of course, both of these things are true. The first sin was an act of unmitigated pride and disobedience. But, as with all sin, there has to be a movement of the will, an action involved, and that’s the real question here.

The symbol of the tree is just that, it’s a literary device, an icon for a deeper reality. When we eat anything, the act of eating is to take something into ourselves and assimilate it into our very being. That’s what we’re seeing here. The forbidden act is to take sin (whatever it is) into ourselves, to unite ourselves to it, to make it a part of us. This act that we’re seeing in Genesis is an act of total commitment of will. So, the tree itself doesn’t reveal the nature of this sin.

If there is to be any revelation here, it has to reside with the one who found the fruit to be a delight to behold, something desirous; Eve. We know her mission, and we know that she failed in it. It is this, I believe, that leads some to think that the first sin was some form of sexual sin.

We know man’s primal mission is to unitive, procreative love. This is the first command we are given. Moreover, it is exactly what makes us image God the most. God is love, because within His being is an inner dynamic of self-giving love from a lover to the beloved, and life comes from that.

Man’s failure wasn’t partial. It was complete. Our first parents failed wholly and completely in their call to image God. Thus, we might reasonably conclude that they did so through some sexual act, because it is in the sexual act that we find the summit of the expression of unitive love between husbands and wives.

Of course, because the act itself has not been recorded in Scripture, the Church cannot affirm one way or the other, beyond what it says about the fundamental nature of this sin (pride, disobedience), what the sin was. So, it does not teach this. But there have been Catholic mystics who say that the first sin was indeed sexual.

But you are not in any way required to believe this as a Catholic.

Cheers!

Beautiful explanation. Thank you. What you said about eating (“to take something into ourselves and assimilate it into our very being”) gave me another thought - which I’m absolutely sure is unoriginal, but interesting to me nonetheless. By giving us the Eucharist, Jesus is yet again the New Adam. Adam ate judgment on himself in the garden when he disobeyed God. He united himself with evil, as you said. Jesus gives us his body as the Eucharist, by which we can unite ourselves with all that is true, good, and beautiful.

 

[You]

Eve was tempted. It does not matter with what, only that it was what she was warned against. Sin is your intention to sin. Perhaps with temptation.
Lead us not into temptation. Extremely difficult and not about apples etc.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

So, saying that the original sin was an act of pride also doesn’t really tell us much. Of course, both of these things are true. The first sin was an act of unmitigated pride and disobedience.

Great point, well stated. Every sin is an act where a man prefers himself to God. I would just be careful to distinguish between “first” sin and “original” sin. The first (human) sin was Eve’s in picking and eating the fruit, but the original sin, that stained humanity, was Adam’s acceptance and eating of the fruit Eve offered to him (which is either the second or third human sin depending on whether you want to count Eve tempting Adam with the fruit as a second sin or link it to her first sin).

 

[MrSnaith]

Great point, well stated. Every sin is an act where a man prefers himself to God. I would just be careful to distinguish between “first” sin and “original” sin. The first (human) sin was Eve’s in picking and eating the fruit, but the original sin, that stained humanity, was Adam’s acceptance and eating of the fruit Eve offered to him (which is either the second or third human sin depending on whether you want to count Eve tempting Adam with the fruit as a second sin or link it to her first sin).

You’re absolutely right! Thank you for the correction. It probably seems like a moot point to some, but it’s not. Eve’s sin wasn’t what did it in for us. It was Adam’s, because it was to Adam that God gave this command, not Eve.

Cheers!

 

[MrSnaith]

Beautiful explanation. Thank you. What you said about eating (“to take something into ourselves and assimilate it into our very being”) gave me another thought - which I’m absolutely sure is unoriginal, but interesting to me nonetheless. By giving us the Eucharist, Jesus is yet again the New Adam. Adam ate judgment on himself in the garden when he disobeyed God. He united himself with evil, as you said. Jesus gives us his body as the Eucharist, by which we can unite ourselves with all that is true, good, and beautiful.

What a great insight! Thank you for sharing!

 

[ynotzap]

When Eve was tempted by Satan, to pride and disobedience, Adam, to please Eve ate the apple. Immediately guilt darkened their minds and upset the harmony of their whole being.They felt their senses rebel and became ashamed of their nakedness. they were naked before and felt no shame. They lost Sanctifying grace they lost preternatural gifts (integrity), privation of supernatural gifts( grace and infused virtues). the state of sin with accompanying guilt and stain, debt of eternal punishment, wounding of nature on account of which the passions rise in rebellion against reason (and this causes lust). which hampers the free exercise of will ( I do what I don’t want to do, and what I want to do, I do not do-St.Paul) and makes it hard to do good. the Church has defined (Council of Trent,) that Adams whole being through sin was changed for the worse. We have inherited original sin and it’s consequences from Adam, with the promise of a Redeemer.

 

[Wesrock]

Adam amd Eve wanted to decide right from wrong and not obey God. This disobedience gave them an intimate knowledge of good and evil, where before they knew only good and had not experienced evil. God wanted to share his divine nature with man, but man wanted to be like God all on his own.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Thomas says that the first sin (of Adam and Eve) was pride, and he specifically rules out the idea that the first sin was lust:

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “It is written (Sirach 10:15): ‘Pride is the beginning of all sin.’ Now man’s first sin is the beginning of all sin, according to Romans 5:12, ‘By one man sin entered into this world.’ Therefore man’s first sin was pride.” [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence, that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately by desiring it according to his measure, as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man’s first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.” [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

 

[fhansen]

Saint Thomas says that the first sin (of Adam and Eve) was pride, and he specifically rules out the idea that the first sin was lust:

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “It is written (Sirach 10:15): ‘Pride is the beginning of all sin.’ Now man’s first sin is the beginning of all sin, according to Romans 5:12, ‘By one man sin entered into this world.’ Therefore man’s first sin was pride.” [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Now man was so appointed in the state of innocence, that there was no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Wherefore it was not possible for the first inordinateness in the human appetite to result from his coveting a sensible good, to which the concupiscence of the flesh tends against the order of reason. It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately by desiring it according to his measure, as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man’s first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man’s first sin was pride.” [Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 163, A. 1.]

It’s still difficult to know where pride came from-why Adam would covet a spiritual good above his measure. It seems to indicate a pre-fall disorder.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It’s still difficult to know where pride came from-why Adam would covet a spiritual good above his measure. It seems to indicate a pre-fall disorder.

Absolutely not. A “pre-Fall disorder” would imply that God erred or that He was complicit in the sin of Adam.

Pride comes from free will. In order for LOVE to be true and pure, it must be freely given, which implies the possibility to choose to reject the selfless love of others. This choice is essentially what we call pride.

 

[fhansen]

Absolutely not. A “pre-Fall disorder” would imply that God erred or that He was complicit in the sin of Adam.

Pride comes from free will. In order for LOVE to be true and pure, it must be freely given, which implies the possibility to choose to reject the selfless love of others. This choice is essentially what we call pride.

All sin is a matter of the will, while culpability is mitigated to some extent if it becomes habitual. And all sin points to a disorder. In fact, Aquinas called pride “inordinate self-love”. So the question arises, where did this pride, this inordinance, come from?

 

[Ron_Conte]

All sin is a matter of the will, while culpability is mitigated to some extent if it becomes habitual. And all sin points to a disorder. In fact, Aquinas called pride “inordinate self-love”. So the question arises, where did this pride, this inordinance, come from?

It is a choice of the free will. We fallen sinners, conceived with original sin, and having concupiscence even after original sin is removed by baptism, have a tendency toward sin. But Adam and Eve were created in a state of original innocence. So their situation was different from our own.

 

[fhansen]

It is a choice of the free will. We fallen sinners, conceived with original sin, and having concupiscence even after original sin is removed by baptism, have a tendency toward sin. But Adam and Eve were created in a state of original innocence. So their situation was different from our own.

I understand that they lacked concupiscence-but that should only make them more culpable. The question just comes up naturally enough-why did Adam sin?

Either way, the Church teaches that God desired from the beginning, from Eden to our present state, that man should seek* to attain to his perfection*, leaving him in the hand of his own counsel. He wants us to will correctly, and thereby to contribute to our perfecting, which occurs a we choose Him, and come into union with Him. And with the help of grace we can achieve this.

 

[ynotzap]

Adam and Eve desired to be like God, they also disobeyed God when He gave them a simple test. Prompted by Satan, who fell from Heaven because of pride, and disobedience. They both made a choice, self, before God. A display of ingratitude, and one of self-love instead of God-love. Their sin was worse because they were endowed with sanctifying grace, and knew better, they had the gift of integrity They owed God everything, especially their love, and gratitude, and obedience. God in justice would have never given them a test they could not pass. Pride is considered a false estimation of oneself, they were His creation and justly owed their Creator love and adoration and it was lacking. All intelligent creatures are fallible, God can not create an infallible intelligent creature because to do so is to create another God, and this is impossible. We are all finite, not infinite, we are all fallible not infallible, we are created and subject to fall. God promised a Redeemer in Jesus Christ who made it possible to be reinstated into sanctifying grace, with the gift of healing and forgiveness to make up for our fallibility, He can do all things even when it seems impossible, who is like Him?

 

[clem456]

It’s still difficult to know where pride came from-why Adam would covet a spiritual good above his measure. It seems to indicate a pre-fall disorder.

Maybe rather than saying that Adam was created with a disorder, we could simply say that Adam was created Human, with free will, and abused it. God created everything in perfect order.

God takes his own tremendous leap of faith by creating creatures who are capable of deicide, and are free to choose it.

But, he also created creatures who are capable of love, with freedom to choose it.

 

[fhansen]

Maybe rather than saying that Adam was created with a disorder, we could simply say that Adam was created Human, with free will, and abused it. God created everything in perfect order.

God takes his own tremendous leap of faith by creating creatures who are capable of deicide, and are free to choose it.

But, he also created creatures who are capable of love, with freedom to choose it.

Yes, and I’m sure that God desires that we simply choose love first above all else. I guess, then that pride, as Ron C mentioned, can be looked upon as the choice not to love, or not to love others as much as self. Disorder may be the wrong word and yet pride is a matter of disorder, injustice.

 

[clem456]

Yes, and I’m sure that God desires that we simply choose love first above all else. I guess, then that pride, as Ron C mentioned, can be looked upon as the choice not to love, or not to love others as much as self. Disorder may be the wrong word and yet pride is a matter of disorder, injustice.

Yes it is. I am not sure that we are born with pride as part of the human condition. I dunno.
In experience, I had to work at pride and it surely developed.
Just as virtue develops with work, with the accumulation of choices.