Was the first sin disobedience or something else?

[Taahanni]

One immediate problem with this view is that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply in Gen. 1:28, and they were obviously physically equipped to do so. This doesn't align well with their having been first introduced to sex by Satan in Gen. 3:6.

I am starting a separate thread to avoid distracting too much from the original one in which this quote is found...

Not too long ago, a friend of mine shared with me an interpretation about the Fall that I had never before heard. She told me the first sin was not "simple disobedience" but rather an "orgy involving bestiality with the serpent". I searched through the threads and read about "Serpent Seed" doctrine, but what my friend posited to me seems slightly different because she mentioned nothing of another race of people, and she said that both Adam and Eve partook in this sin, whereas "Serpent Seed" doctrine seems to posit that only Eve engaged in a sexual act with the serpent. I will try to explain her reasoning as clearly and succinctly as I can in the following paragraph:

*Adam and Eve were created, and God gave them the gift of intimate union (sex). They perverted that union by including the serpent in a sexual act. When the Bible mentions the forbidden fruit, the original word for "fruit" actually means "seed". The Bible uses very colorful language--like in Song of Solomon--to describe sexual union, and thus the Genesis account may very well be using the same literary techniques. The reason Adam and Eve covered their privates when God was walking through the garden is because they knew they had perverted His design in marriage and in sex. We see how throughout history Satan always seeks to destroy the family and pervert sex, and he did this from the beginning with Adam and Eve.*

I apologize if this has already been discussed in-depth somewhere, and I missed it. I am simply looking for feedback and education in this topic. The only education I have in ancient texts is what my pastor preaches from the pulpit and a New Testament Greek class I took when I was 11. I want to know if this is a wrong (or even heretical) view of the Fall account, or if it falls within the realm of acceptable interpretations. I do not intend to debate my friend over her view as I do not think that would go over well, but I would like, for my own edification, to know how to debate this view in my own mind.

 

[Phil D.]

I'm not familiar with this particular variation of "sex with the Serpent" and so haven't given it much consideration. One initial reaction is to note that the idea has apparently escaped every notable orthodox Christian theologian and biblical exegete in history, which gives me great pause and doubt about it.

 

[Gwallard]

Genesis 2:16-17, the prohibition of God against eating, doesn't use "fruit," it simply speaks of eating "of the tree of." So that we're dealing with agricultural trees here: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.""

Additionally, Genesis 1-3 is not poetic, it is a historical narrative, so to interpret them poetically like Song of Solomon would be wrong. Both the use of "tree" as the first mention of the prohibition, and Eve's later use of "פְרִי" (fruit) in Genesis 3:2-3 depends upon the earlier prohibition, which is explicitly agricultural and in narrative. Although פְרִי is used later in Song of Solomon 4:16 figuratively - this is a highly poetic book, with EVERY use of agriculture being used figuratively. In fact, when Eve eats, it doesn't even say she ate the fruit, it says, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise..." and only then, as a product of the TREE, "she took of its (the tree's) fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

On the other hand, פְרִי can indeed be used in a sexual way, but it is used always (with the exception of one poem, Songs 4:16 above, as far as I can see) to denote the fruit of sex - offspring. It doesn't denote sex itself, but the product of sex. Unless we are willing to say that Eve had sex with a tree, this is not open to us, the text will never allow a serpent son of this kind, it would only allow a "tree son," whatever that means. Additionally, Eve ate of the fruit, then gave the fruit to her husband, which I suppose would be some kind of cannibalism in this interpretation.

This is an unacceptable interpretation of the text - the point of the tree was not to point to sex, but to point to obedience to God regardless of how good something looks in our own eyes. The tree and - by consequence it's fruit - indeed looked good and Eve used the Serpant's lies to interpret the tree rather than the command of God. The action of eating is not only good, but a whole garden was given to them to eat by God - eating was encouraged. The point of the tree was whether Adam and Eve would recognize that God decided what, how, and when something was good or evil - not whether our interpretation made something good. But beastiality is always wrong - this would make Adam and Eve's fall completely different, and would make the temptation ridiculous: how many even of the most depraved people today are tempted by beastiality, let alone the originally pure Adam and Eve? Nearly none.

Now, there may be more sexual things after this - Milton takes that view in Paradise Lost. But that is not in the text.

Hope this helps!

(Edited with more context and clarity.)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Monica,

What follows is how I view what is spoken of in Genesis 2:16, 17, etc:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

It's really simple, although profound. The "knowledge of good and evil" they were tempted to partake of by the devil was whose rules would they live by, whose ideas of right and wrong would they follow, God's, or their own. The serpent said God was withholding true knowledge from them by His selfish commandment. What they followed was their own idea of what was good and evil, not God's. In the instant they did this, it became evident they had died to God, were in darkness and death. They were now spiritually children of the devil, having switched their allegiance to him instead of God.

Although the LORD was gracious to them, and faith – and a great promise – was given them of a Saviour to come who would destroy the devil, death nonetheless came upon all their progeny, yet the LORD would have mercy on some, and would save a multitude.

 

[Taahanni]

One initial reaction is to note that the idea has apparently escaped every notable orthodox Christian theologian and biblical exegete in history, which gives me great pause and doubt about it.

I certainly agree with this, but to satisfy the questions in my mind about what makes this view credible or not, I need a bit more than that reason alone!

 

[Phil D.]

I certainly agree with this, but to satisfy the questions in my mind about what makes this view credible or not, I need a bit more than that reason alone!

For sure, and I'm not a great exegete myself, but extreme strangeness relative to orthodox theology is almost always a reliable indicator that something is badly off.

Just a few historical notes relative to my previous point.

Several variations of SwtS are mentioned by some of the early church fathers, and they posit that all such views were the holdings of Gnostic heretics. Perhaps the most widespread view, a tenant of Sethianism, was that the Serpent first attempted to seduce and rape Eve, but ultimately had to resort to inhabiting the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and so corrupted the human race via tempting Adam and Eve to partake of that. Irenaeus describes the Cainites as teaching that Eve committed physical adultery with the Serpent - a doctrine he called "an utterly corrupted carcass of a miserable little fox." Irenaeus' own view was that sex between Adam and Eve was as innocent and pure as one might deem "children hugging and kissing" until they disobeyed, and the shame they felt thereafter was, among other things, a natural result of their general disobedience. Given its absence from these earliest accounts, the version involving both Adam and Eve appears to be a further contortion of some later origin.

 

[Ploutos]

@Taahanni does your friend have a source for this belief?

 

[Logan]

Westminster Shorter Catechism answers it very succinctly:

15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

 

[Gwallard]

Westminster Shorter Catechism answers it very succinctly:

15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

I think the point I am making below is a little off topic, but it gets to your comment:

Although I agree, I think we can make a distinction - the first sin vs. the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created. The latter is Covenantal: what caused Adam and Eve to fall? This sin God Covenanted to punish; the former is temporal: what internal sin caused Adam and Eve to sin the Covenantal sin?

I'd say the first sin was actually the internal acceptance of Satan's way of thinking, and although that inevitably led to action, the action of eating the fruit of the tree was what God Covenanted to punish with death.

 

[Taahanni]

@Taahanni does your friend have a source for this belief?

I did not have the opportunity to inquire of her sources, but I plan to ask her more about that when I see her next. She did share with me she has a Bible study with someone who walks her through Scripture, and he is the one who helped her reach this conclusion. Again, I do not intend to debate her, but I do plan to ask her some pointed questions.

 

[Logan]

Although I agree, I think we can make a distinction - the first sin vs. the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created. The latter is Covenantal: what caused Adam and Eve to fall? This sin God Covenanted to punish; the former is temporal: what internal sin caused Adam and Eve to sin the Covenantal sin?

I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that saying it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin without falling?

 

[Gwallard]

I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that saying it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin without falling?

That's not what I mean, but my comment definitely left it open to that. All I'm saying is that the fall was the result of a first (temporally) sin of the heart, but that wasn't the sin that God commanded against explicitly, so the fall only happened (temporally, consequentially) after the eating of the fruit. Once they sinned in the heart, then they were going to sin in action - that is always the case - but it's always the case that disobedience is first (temporally) and foremost (primarily in the scales of justice) a sin of the heart that leads to action.

The first sin in the heart of rebellion by believing Satan's view of the world apart from God's view, and the act of direct rebellion are inseparably linked, yet they differ.

 

[Logan]

The first sin in the heart of rebellion by believing Satan's view of the world apart from God's view, and the act of direct rebellion are inseparably linked, yet they differ.

Okay, I see them as integral. Regardless, the point to the OP was that confessionally, we acknowledge that the sin was the eating the forbidden fruit. And that does not mean sex with the Serpent.

 

[Taahanni]

Okay, I see them as integral. Regardless, the point to the OP was that confessionally, we acknowledge that the sin was the eating the forbidden fruit. And that does not mean sex with the Serpent.

Agreed. My friend is not reformed, and therefore she probably would not know what the Westminster Standards are. I merely ask for a bit more detail in how to deal with this alternative view of what “eating the forbidden fruit” means.

 

[Logan]

If your friend is absolutely convinced that the language is actually encoded to mean "sex with the serpent" then I don't see what would convince her otherwise.

Gen 2:17: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (no mention of the serpent at all)
Gen 3:6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..."

If someone wants to take the plain words and impart some subtle hidden meaning to them, then there is no limit to what this could refer to. The hidden meaning of "fruit" could mean anything you want it to mean. Nowhere in Scripture does "fruit" refer to bestiality so she's definitely reading it into the text, not out of the text. Therefore it is on her to prove that her hypothesis is indeed what it refers to, it is not necessary for anyone else to disprove it.

 

[ReformedChristian]

This idea seems like it comes from some form of Gnosticism or later Rabbinic legends.

 

[VictorBravo]

In simple response to the post’s question, I think the first sin was falling for the promise “to be like gods.” In other words, pride and the resulting opposition to their Creator. Then, looking at themselves and realizing they are not like gods, they tried to hide their shame at being exposed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This is why we go by the word of truth, and not the views of men, however highly reputed they may be. The history of the people of God is littered with erroneous – and often bizarre – views.

This is why we also seek proper hermeneutical (interpretive) understandings to guide us in some of the more difficult Scriptures. Genesis, which is historical narrative – albeit in language often exalted and spare – is not difficult, and it is easy to spot when even brilliant and godly men stray from the path of truth.

The Book of Revelation may well be considered difficult, but there too we are given interpretive tools so we understand the genres it is written in and exposit wisely its crucially important messages.

The first book and the last book of Scripture are so foundational to our right understanding of God, His ways, and His works, it is little wonder they both are so strongly attacked and distorted. I am thankful that the Presbyterian, Reformed, and 1689ers have strong and clear confessional statements.

Yet it is Scripture that is our primary and infallible standard.

 

[MW]

Gen. 3:11, And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
V. 12, And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
V. 13, And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

If words are allowed to speak according to the plain meaning of them it is obvious what happened. The woman was beguiled by the serpent, not into committing a sexual act, but into eating from the forbidden tree.

And yet there was something akin to sexual infidelity here -- spiritual whoredom. Hence the use of beguiling language, the opening of their eyes to their nakedness, and the curse on the serpent in terms which reflect a natural alliance. But such nuance can only be discerned if the literal event is understood as described by the narrative.

 

[Mrs_soup]

Well…wow. Certainly not the way I thought this thread would go based on the title. That’s among one of the stranger Genesis interpretations I’ve heard.

 

[Taahanni]

Well…wow. Certainly not the way I thought this thread would go based on the title. That’s among one of the stranger Genesis interpretations I’ve heard.

Yes… I was not sure how to title this thread for that reason. I grew up in a reformed environment, and hearing an interpretation like that also caught me a bit off guard. I’d like to be more mentally equipped next time I hear something like this.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Yeah that's some really wild stuff. It goes so much against a clear reading of the text.

 

[py3ak]

In addition to the sound observations made already, one could ask why interpret the text in that light? The answer will sometimes be grounded on some supposed reluctance to speak bluntly. At that point, the fact that there are very direct, if mildly euphemistic, statements about sexual activity of many kinds in the rest of the OT may help to show that there was no necessity for Genesis 3 to speak vaguely and allusively if that's what it meant.