Were Adam and Eve married before the Fall?
Some questions inspired by Tim's helpful comment on the previous post:
(1) Were Adam and Eve married before the Fall?
(2) Did they have sexual intercourse before the Fall?
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (1) go here.
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (2) go here.
I'm not sure whether there is an 'official' RC line on these matters: anyone know?
John Keble certainly said `yes' to (1): his hymn `The Voice that breathed o'er Eden' is often used at weddings today.
Milton answered 'yes' to both. But why then were there no children? Just because the Fall followed on so closely (we presume) from Eve's creation? Or because sex had no procreative role then?
Any other answers out there? And what does this tell us about the nature and purpose of sex and marriage now? Roman Catholics say that it tells us that marriage is a sacrament, established as a means of grace to counteract the Fall. But is this right?
(1) Were Adam and Eve married before the Fall?
(2) Did they have sexual intercourse before the Fall?
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (1) go here.
For a Roman-Catholic negative answer to (2) go here.
I'm not sure whether there is an 'official' RC line on these matters: anyone know?
John Keble certainly said `yes' to (1): his hymn `The Voice that breathed o'er Eden' is often used at weddings today.
Milton answered 'yes' to both. But why then were there no children? Just because the Fall followed on so closely (we presume) from Eve's creation? Or because sex had no procreative role then?
Any other answers out there? And what does this tell us about the nature and purpose of sex and marriage now? Roman Catholics say that it tells us that marriage is a sacrament, established as a means of grace to counteract the Fall. But is this right?
posted by Daniel Hill | 5/23/2006 05:42:00 pm
2 Comments:
The answers to the questions are the same, as marriage without sex is wrong (unless there is very good reason).
I think "yes" because the "for this reason a man shall leave..." passage is before the Fall.
Why no kids?
The time answer is a possibility.
But who says 4:1 happens after the events of chapter 3? It might just be a detail that was irrelevant until then. Who even says that Cain and Abel were necessarily the first two children and Seth the third?
3:16 is striking in this respect - "greatly [b]increase[/b] your pains in childbearing"
Just an idea...
"The time answer is a possibility." says Custard.
Presumably he's talking about the time between the creation of Eve [made from Adam's rib] in Genesis 2 and the Fall in Genesis 3?
Scripture is not explicit about how much time elapsed between Creation and Fall, but Milton's Paradise Lost makes it very short indeed, though we must be careful not count this poetic treatment of the themes as evidence of history.
However, had Eve conceived before the Fall, yet given birth after the Fall, would not this have given rise to a son or daughter made in the image of an unfallen humanity? What sort of anthropological anomalies would this have led to?
That such a sequence of events is was not ordained beforehand must surely be attributed to God's decrees and Divine Providence.
Post a Comment
<< Home