Looking for Adam

[Ridgerunner]

The meaning of the Hebrew word used is often used to convey the concept of direct, experiential knowledge. To know one in the marital union, for example, is one place the word is used in Scripture. It can also refer to intellectual knowledge.

Aquinas offered two meanings for the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. One is that direct, experiential knowledge of good and evil would result from eating of the tree, while the other is that the act of eating of the tree was to take upon themselves the authority to determine good and evil-morality-for themselves, as if they knew right and wrong independent of God, putting themselves in His place.

And those are the only two ways of understanding the matter that are logically consistent with Scripture IMO. And they don’t necessarily conflict with each other.

This makes very good sense.

 

[simpleas]

Catholic teaching does not say that Original Sin was “in gaining this knowledge.” That kind of misunderstanding is due to the fact that many readers of Sacred Scripture continue to ignore the real purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. CCC 355-357; CCC 396; CCC 1730-1732.

Please kindly refer to posts 136 & 139. Thank you.

I have read your posts 136 & 139. Post 139 read to me that you need to discuss the meaning of the tree, where I haven’t even begun to understand who Adam and Eve are.

You are right that the church doesn’t teach that gaining knowledge of good and evil was the original sin, but that it was the loss of trust in God that caused man to lose original holiness and justice.

But as it’s written in Genesis that man became like God with the knowledge of good and evil, which he wasn’t supposed to have, and so could no longer live in the garden or live forever sort of sounds like a sin.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, but their choice was the same as ours in essence.

How could their choice be the same as ours?

They were created with Original holiness and justice, meaning in right friendship with God, each other and the whole of creation.

We are born with Original sin, not in friendship with God, each other and the whole of creation, even after baptism we are not ever like the first two humans because we suffer still from the effects of the original sin.
We aren’t in a garden of eden.

 

[fhansen]

How could their choice be the same as ours?

They were created with Original holiness and justice, meaning in right friendship with God, each other and the whole of creation.

We are born with Original sin, not in friendship with God, each other and the whole of creation, even after baptism we are not ever like the first two humans because we suffer still from the effects of the original sin.
We aren’t in a garden of eden.

Their choice was the same- to trust God or not trust Him. They broke faith in-and so broke relationship with-Him. We’re asked to have faith in Him again, with Jesus Christ, most definitively, proving His worthiness, His trustworthiness, which He should never have had to prove but which He was willing to prove to us anyway, no matter what it took.

Same choice: life or death, good or evil, God or no God. We’re actually more advantaged now in some ways: we’ve* tasted* evil-and have had it’s antithesis, grace, bestowed lavishly as our Redeemer has won even more for us than what we lost. We have the opportunity now to gain the reason, or more reason, to finally say “yes” instead of “no”. That “yes” is what we’re here to learn to say, most fully accomplished as we come to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.

 

[Vico]

I read this recently in the Summa but couldn’t quite agree with Eve’s guilt being greater, even tho I rarely find myself disagreeing with Mr Aquinas. If anything her guilt may’ve been* less* because she was deceived, while Adam simply* ate.* OTOH, I like the way STA acknowledged that there was a willfulness in her being deceived; she played a role by preferring a lie over the truth. Either way, pride was a motivator for both. Here’s more from the Summa, from the same part, ques 162:

**Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?
**
On the contrary, 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.

I answer that, Many movements may concur towards one sin, and the character of sin attaches to that one in which inordinateness is first found. And it is evident that inordinateness is in the inward movement of the soul before being in the outward act of the body; since, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 18), the sanctity of the body is not forfeited so long as the sanctity of the soul remains. Also, among the inward movements, the appetite is moved towards the end before being moved towards that which is desired for the sake of the end; and consequently man’s first sin was where it was possible for his appetite to be directed to an inordinate end. 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.

Aquinas also goes on to state that pride is the most grievous of all sins.

There is one telling sentence in the Summa on the topic:
As stated (3), the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man’s sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.

 

[fhansen]

There is one telling sentence in the Summa on the topic:
As stated (3), the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circumstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man’s sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.

Well, we might run into trouble with *that *assertion.

 

[Vico]

Well, we might run into trouble with *that *assertion.

St. John Chrysostom writes that Eve mad bad use of her equality with Adam and therefore God made her subject to her husband:

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Your desire shall be to your husband?” Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before.
But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.
newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm

New American Bible (NABRE)
1 Timothy 2:11-14
11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

Adam was commanded:

Gen 2:
[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.
Eve knew what was commanded:

Gen 3:
[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4]

The judgment:

[14] And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed …

[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions …

[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, …

 

[fhansen]

St. John Chrysostom writes that Eve mad bad use of her equality with Adam and therefore God made her subject to her husband:

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Your desire shall be to your husband?” Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before.
But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.
newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm

New American Bible (NABRE)
1 Timothy 2:11-14
11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

Adam was commanded:

Gen 2:
[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.
Eve knew what was commanded:

Gen 3:
[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4]

The judgment:

[14] And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed …

[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions …

[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, …

Ok, but trouble still hasn’t been averted. Just so you know.

 

[Vico]

Ok, but trouble still hasn’t been averted. Just so you know.

It certainly was not such a problem that St. Paul would not state it.

 

[fhansen]

It certainly was not such a problem that St. Paul would not state it.

Well, St Paul certainly didn’t hold back on his feelings about the role of women, but I don’t recall him speaking about the matter in terms of differences in perfection.

 

[simpleas]

Oh please…

If this thread is going to turn into a debate on which sex is superior then I’m outta here. …

 

[Vico]

Well, St Paul certainly didn’t hold back on his feelings about the role of women, but I don’t recall him speaking about the matter in terms of differences in perfection.

It is the idea from Genesis (second creation narrative) and is reflected in 1 Cor 11 (NABRE) of authority. Additionally, Eve was fooled. St. Thomas used perfection from Aristotle idea of active is more perfect than passive.

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife,* and God the head of Christ. c … 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;e 9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;f

• [11:3] A husband the head of his wife: the specific problem suggests to Paul the model of the head as a device for clarifying relations within a hierarchical structure. The model is similar to that developed later in greater detail and nuance in Eph 5:21–33. It is a hybrid model, for it grafts onto a strictly theological scale of existence (cf. 1 Cor 3:21–23) the hierarchy of sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient world: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relation to his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church with respect to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man, woman.
• [11:7–9] The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (eikōn) and the reflected glory (doxa). Paul is alluding basically to the text of Gn 1:27, in which mankind as a whole, the male-female couple, is created in God’s image and given the command to multiply and together dominate the lower creation. But Gn 1:24 is interpreted here in the light of the second creation narrative in Gn 2, in which each of the sexes is created separately (first the man and then the woman from man and for him, to be his helpmate, Gn 2:20–23), and under the influence of the story of the fall, as a result of which the husband rules over the woman (Gn 3:16). This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness.

c. [11:3] Eph 5:23.
e. [11:8] Gn 2:21–23.
f. [11:9] Gn 2:18.

 

[fhansen]

Oh please…

If this thread is going to turn into a debate on which sex is superior then I’m outta here. …

Maybe we can start a “Looking for Eve” thread.

 

[simpleas]

Maybe we can start a “Looking for Eve” thread.

I would go with looking for Adam and Eve…

But this thread was “aimed” at Adam, but then when I think of Adam, I think man, which equals Adam and Eve to me.

 

[simpleas]

Their choice was the same- to trust God or not trust Him. They broke faith in-and so broke relationship with-Him. We’re asked to have faith in Him again, with Jesus Christ, most definitively, proving His worthiness, His trustworthiness, which He should never have had to prove but which He was willing to prove to us anyway, no matter what it took.

Same choice: life or death, good or evil, God or no God. We’re actually more advantaged now in some ways: we’ve* tasted* evil-and have had it’s antithesis, grace, bestowed lavishly as our Redeemer has won even more for us than what we lost. We have the opportunity now to gain the reason, or more reason, to finally say “yes” instead of “no”. That “yes” is what we’re here to learn to say, most fully accomplished as we come to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.

To me it’s not the same choice. They were different in many ways, it was a totally different time, place and need.

All what you say sounds very good, I don’t disagree, just don’t see the same “situation” same choice in A&E and their descendants.

 

[fhansen]

To me it’s not the same choice. They were different in many ways, it was a totally different time, place and need.

All what you say sounds very good, I don’t disagree, just don’t see the same “situation” same choice in A&E and their descendants.

Maybe not. I tend to think it’s not obvious at first-but the choice is essentially the same in the end. We’re not so different-and God’s ultimate purpose in any case is for man to willingly turn to Him in love and obedience-obedience *because *of love, actually. That’s when and how our justice will be fully realized.

 

[Richca]

I have read your posts 136 & 139. Post 139 read to me that you need to discuss the meaning of the tree, where I haven’t even begun to understand who Adam and Eve are.

You are right that the church doesn’t teach that gaining knowledge of good and evil was the original sin, but that it was the loss of trust in God that caused man to lose original holiness and justice.

But as it’s written in Genesis that man became like God with the knowledge of good and evil, which he wasn’t supposed to have, and so could no longer live in the garden or live forever sort of sounds like a sin.

It was the devil who said “For God knows that when you eat of it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). This was a deception and lie of the devil who Jesus calls a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Eve thinks, believing the deceiving words of the serpent, “that the tree was desired to make one wise” (Gen. 3:6). The eyes of both Adam and Eve were indeed opened after they ate the forbidden fruit, not to wisdom, however, but to shame “and they knew that they were naked.”

 

[Richca]

It is the idea from Genesis (second creation narrative) and is reflected in 1 Cor 11 of authority. Additionally, Eve was fooled. St. Thomas used perfection from Aristotle idea of active is more perfect than passive.

3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. c … 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;e 9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;f

• [11:3] A husband the head of his wife: the specific problem suggests to Paul the model of the head as a device for clarifying relations within a hierarchical structure. The model is similar to that developed later in greater detail and nuance in Eph 5:21–33. It is a hybrid model, for it grafts onto a strictly theological scale of existence (cf. 1 Cor 3:21–23) the hierarchy of sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient world: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relation to his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church with respect to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man, woman.
• [11:7–9] The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (eikōn) and the reflected glory (doxa). Paul is alluding basically to the text of Gn 1:27, in which mankind as a whole, the male-female couple, is created in God’s image and given the command to multiply and together dominate the lower creation. But Gn 1:24 is interpreted here in the light of the second creation narrative in Gn 2, in which each of the sexes is created separately (first the man and then the woman from man and for him, to be his helpmate, Gn 2:20–23), and under the influence of the story of the fall, as a result of which the husband rules over the woman (Gn 3:16). This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness.

c. [11:3] Eph 5:23.
e. [11:8] Gn 2:21–23.
f. [11:9] Gn 2:18.

In this post, I do not intend to argue against Vico’s post or what St Thomas says about perfection or what may have been his thought concerning the perfection of the sexes, male and female, the consequences of original sin in which Adam and Eve were punished by God with particular punishments, or what St Paul says about the sexes. Here, I intend to focus on another point which I find to be very interesting.

The Scripture says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1: 27). The different sexes of man and woman and their respective personalities somehow share a likeness to God. The CCC#370 makes mention of this:
“In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.” The footnote to this text of the CCC points us to different texts of scripture where God is portrayed as being both a father and a mother to Israel, the chosen people. In the very intimate life of the Trinity, it is not difficult for us to see the fatherhood or paternity of God. For the first person of the Trinity is God the Father who eternally begets his only begotten Son and the Son is the second person of the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son we obviously associate with masculinity or the male human being. The question remains, in the very bosom of the Trinity, does the femininity of the female human being bear some likeness to the Trinity of persons themselves.

Interestingly, the theological reflections of St Maximilian Kolbe portray the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as a divine maternity of love in the very life of the Trinity. In human relations, whom do we associate love more than to mother’s? Love is one of the names we give to the Holy Spirit himself and the Scripture says “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Romans 5:5). Although the work of our sanctification is a work of the whole Trinity, it is especially appropriated to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. The work of our sanctification is a work of God’s love for us and the Holy Spirit is the personification of Love in the Trinity.

So, the Scriptures portray God’s care and love for us not only after that of a father but also of a mother. “Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should have no compassion of the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” (Isaiah 49:15). And Jesus says “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” (Matt. 23: 37). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, the Personified Love the Father and the Son have for each other.

Now, is there among all God’s creatures, one who manifests this divine maternity of love which is the Holy Spirit in the bosom of the Trinity the most or as it were perfectly? Yes, says St Maximilian Kolbe, it is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and the mother of all redeemed humanity. The divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, her motherly love and everything she stands for, is as it were a sign or visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit himself. The Blessed Virgin is so wholly possessed by the Holy Spirit and one with Him that in the words of St Maximilian Kolbe, she is at it were the ‘quasi-incarnation’ of the Holy Spirit. In the work of our rebirth to the life of grace and our continual sanctification, the Holy Spirit normally acts only through the Blessed Virgin Mary who is our mother in the order of divine grace and whose will is wholly united to the will of her Spouse, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vico]

In this post, I do not intend to argue against Vico’s post or what St Thomas says about perfection or what may have been his thought concerning the perfection of the sexes, male and female, the consequences of original sin in which Adam and Eve were punished by God with particular punishments, or what St Paul says about the sexes. Here, I intend to focus on another point which I find to be very interesting.

The Scripture says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1: 27). The different sexes of man and woman and their respective personalities somehow share a likeness to God. The CCC#370 makes mention of this:
“In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.” The footnote to this text of the CCC points us to different texts of scripture where God is portrayed as being both a father and a mother to Israel, the chosen people. In the very intimate life of the Trinity, it is not difficult for us to see the fatherhood or paternity of God. For the first person of the Trinity is God the Father who eternally begets his only begotten Son and the Son is the second person of the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son we obviously associate with masculinity or the male human being. The question remains, in the very bosom of the Trinity, does the femininity of the female human being bear some likeness to the Trinity of persons themselves.

Interestingly, the theological reflections of St Maximilian Kolbe portray the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as a divine maternity of love in the very life of the Trinity. In human relations, whom do we associate love more than to mother’s? Love is one of the names we give to the Holy Spirit himself and the Scripture says “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Romans 5:5). Although the work of our sanctification is a work of the whole Trinity, it is especially appropriated to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. The work of our sanctification is a work of God’s love for us and the Holy Spirit is the personification of Love in the Trinity.

So, the Scriptures portray God’s care and love for us not only after that of a father but also of a mother. “Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should have no compassion of the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” (Isaiah 49:15). And Jesus says “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” (Matt. 23: 37). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, the Personified Love the Father and the Son have for each other.

Now, is there among all God’s creatures, one who manifests this divine maternity of love which is the Holy Spirit in the bosom of the Trinity the most or as it were perfectly? Yes, says St Maximilian Kolbe, it is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and the mother of all redeemed humanity. The divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, her motherly love and everything she stands for, is as it were a sign or visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit himself. The Blessed Virgin is so wholly possessed by the Holy Spirit and one with Him that in the words of St Maximilian Kolbe, she is at it were the ‘quasi-incarnation’ of the Holy Spirit. In the work of our rebirth to the life of grace and our continual sanctification, the Holy Spirit normally acts only through the Blessed Virgin Mary who is our mother in the order of divine grace and whose will is wholly united to the will of her Spouse, the Holy Spirit.

Catechism
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. …

http://www.skete.com/images/products/icons/T45lg.jpg

 

[grannymh]

When we look for Adam in the first three chapters of Genesis, we find him in the very beginning of a magnificent love story. Genesis 1: 26-27.