Monastery of the Holy Cross

  • Home
  • About
    • Benedictine Life
    • History
    • Video Gallery
    • Et Incarnatus Est - The Prior's Blog
  • Visit Us
    • Guesthouse
    • Prayer Schedule
      • Christmas 2025
    • The Catholic Readers Society
  • Vocations
    • Monastic Experience Weekend
    • Formation
    • Oblates
      • Oblate Podcast
  • Solemn Vespers
    • Solemn Vespers for the Sixth Sunday of Easter
    • Chant
  • Contact
  • Donate

Articles under Scripture

Reflections on Genesis 2 for the Feast of SS Joachim and Anne

July 26, 2024

“In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant (siah) of the field was yet in the earth and no herb (ēsev) of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Genesis 2: 4b-8

“Thou hast one daughter/Who redeems nature from the general curse.”

King Lear IV.vi.205

Here, we have, in the Hebrew mindset, the true ‘state of nature’, one rather different from the Hobbesian ‘red in tooth and claw’ version.  Scholars of the Pentateuch, who typically regard the book of Genesis as a compilation from different sources, point out that in the previous chapter, ‘vegetation (deshe’)’ and ‘plants (ēsev)’ were already created by God.  Since in chapter 2, there is said to be no plants or herbs in the fields, this is taken as evidence that the original story given in chapter 2 was written without any knowledge of chapter 1.

However, Rabbi Umberto Cassuto, in his work criticizing the ‘documentary hypothesis’, argued persuasively that the reference is to two different classes of plants.  In chapter 1, we have plants in the ‘state of nature’, which God pronounces ‘good’.  In chapter 2, the denial that there were plants and herbs ‘in the field’ does not deny the existence of all plants.  Rather, ‘the field’, which connotes the wildness that was introduced into nature as part of the curse of Genesis 3: 17-19, does not contain any of this wild growth, including the specific genera of plants referred to as siah in Hebrew.

This rare word appears here and in three other instances in the Old Testament.  In Genesis 21: 15, when Sarah convinces Abraham to drive out Hagar from the household, Hagar in desperation places her son Ishmael under ‘the bushes’.  This is again in the wild, in the inhospitable ‘field’ (which, incidentally, is also where Cain lures Abel to murder him).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the other two instances of siah occur in the book of Job.  These ‘bushes’ (or ‘shrubs’) appear in 30: 4 and then again in verse 7, and appear once more in ‘dry and desolate ground’, in a place where people are ‘driven out from among men’.

To return now to Genesis 2, we read that the Lord had not yet sent rain upon the earth.  Indeed, the first time that we can say without contradiction that it does rain, is in chapter 7:  ‘The windows of the heavens were opened.  And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.’  During this time, every creature of flesh not in Noah’s ark perished.  Thus it is implied that rain is part of the ‘fallen’ dispensation, producing these wild shrubs and other plants ‘of the field’.  Human beings were meant, in the original purity of creation, to dwell in a garden, in which water was supplied by this mysterious mist that went up from the earth.  Why would this detail be mentioned about the earth being watered (literally ‘given to drink’) if there were no plants?

It is also worth noting that there is no man to till the ground, and yet God makes it fruitful.  The Fathers of the Church, particularly in the Middle Ages, saw this detail as presaging the Incarnation of the divine Word of God.  The fruitfulness of the earth immediately after its creation, despite there being ‘no man to till’ it, finds its mystical fulfillment in the conception of Christ of the Virgin Mary, who knew no man.  For this fruitfulness, which depends entirely on God (and not on the ‘will of man’—John 1: 13), the ground must be pure, untouched in any way by the future ‘general curse’ that will mark the beginning of the rains, the thorns, thistles and shrubs of the field.

Today is the feast of SS Joachim and Anne, parents of Our Lady.  Their ‘one daughter’ was a ‘new creation’, a ground that needed no purification to become fecund at the overshadowing, the brooding of the Holy Spirit of God.  Akin to the temple, from which mystically flowed the waters which recall the mist and streams of Genesis 2, she is the true ‘ark of the covenant’, fit to be the dwelling place of the Dominus vivificans, the Lord, the Giver of Life, and to give God’s Son a body and a Mother.  She too, required no purification for this to take place, other than the anticipated grace of our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection, ‘which [God] foresaw’, as the collect for Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception phrases it.  Which is to say that God, in preparation for His definitive act of salvation, quietly prepared His triumph in the humble marriage bed of SS Joachim and Anne.  Happy feast day to all!

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 4:9

July 24, 2024

hashomer achi anochi?

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The Hebrew word order places a square emphasis on the word ‘I’.  The sense then is, “Is my brother’s keeper supposed to be me?”—with the possible additional implication that God should have prevented the murder of Abel, since He knows everything.  It can’t be stressed enough that the use of questions by God in the early chapters of Genesis should not be understood in a ‘folk’ sense of an anthropomorphized ‘god’ who doesn’t know what is happening and so needs to inquire.  Rather, these question need to be seen as a pedagogical tool that God is using to educate the first human beings.

Cain’s counter-accusation suggests a kind of bitterness.  It is as if Cain were saying, “Abel is Your favorite, after all.  You accepted his sacrifice and not mine.  If You cared about him so much, why didn’t You find a way to protect him from me?”

Indeed, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai makes just this observation: “When God asked Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ Cain answered “Am I my brother’s keeper?  You are God.  You have created man.  It is Your task to watch him, not mine.  If I ought not to have done what I did, You could have prevented me from doing it.”  This reads like the victim mentality so prevalent in our world today.

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 4:5

July 16, 2024

“So Cain was very angry (vayyichar l’qayin m’od), and his countenance fell.”

More literally, this reads, “Great wrath was to Cain”; or “Cain had great wrath.”  Anger here undergoes a kind of substantiation; it appears as something real and substantial.  The serpent has gone underground and no longer appears directly to human beings, but instead influences at the periphery of consciousness.  God warns Cain about this:  “Sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” [4: 7]  That is to say, we must learn to guard the door of our thoughts and not allow in sinful suggestions.  If we are not vigilant, these thoughts become a part of us and seem insurmountable.  But this is an illusion based on past negligences.

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 3:14

July 9, 2024

“The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this…”

God does not ask the serpent why he did what he did, as God asked Adam and Eve in turn.  This is an indication that the serpent cannot be taught.  God does not adopt a pedagogical tone toward the serpent as He does toward Adam and Eve.  This is another hint of the ‘proto-evangelion’: God is against the serpent but for humankind.

 

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 3:12

July 2, 2024

“The woman that You gave me.”

It is remarkable how passive Adam turns out to be.  The one who boldly named all of the animals now finds himself, or at least portrays himself, as a hapless victim:  “You gave me…she gave me…and…I ate.”  Already toil, thorns, and thistles have entered!  “The sluggard says, ‘There is a lion in the road!  There is a lion in the streets!’ (Proverbs 26: 13)  Poor me!

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 3:11

June 25, 2024

“Who told you that you were naked?”

We perhaps hear God speaking in an angry tone, which is unfortunate, since the text indicates no such thing.  The fact that no one answers the question should be taken, not as an indication of God’s ‘impatience’, but as representing fearful silence on the part of Adam and Eve.

Who told them that they were naked?  No one, of course; they simply became aware of this terrible fact.  They needed no one to tell them; nor does God need to find out.  Again, I suspect that we tend to hear His following question (“Have you eaten…?”) as God piecing together the crime, but this is clearly absurd.  Why, then, does God ask this?

God does all things for the purpose of teaching and forming His creatures toward fullness of life and understanding.  Adam and Eve, pondering this question, would have to answer as we did above:  “No one told us that we were naked.  We discovered it after eating the fruit.”  It is true: they now know good and evil for themselves.

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 1:27

May 24, 2024

Vayyibəra’ elohim et-hadam bətsalmo.

“And God created man/adam in His image.”  This is only the second use of the specific verb bara, ‘to create’.  So far, after creating matter, it would seem, God has been making use of matter to make new creatures.  By a process of separation, He formed light and darkness, and by the process of ‘bringing forth’, the plants and animals sprang up.  But when it comes to creating man, God must both ‘make’ (1: 26, Hebrew na’aseh) man, but also ‘create’ Him in His image.  This indicates that man is a two-fold creature, matter and spirit.  Chapter 2 communicates the same truth in the two-fold process of forming man’s body from the earth, but breathing in, from God’s own breath, a spiritual nature besides.

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 3:5

June 18, 2024

“God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.”

This is perhaps evidence of a primordial fall of ‘the gods’ (the serpent would also be evidence), the fall not recounted directly in Scripture, but referred to by Our Lord (Luke 10: 18).  These ‘gods’ (the Hebrew word elohim can mean either ‘gods’ or ‘God’) wanted knowledge of the forbidden, ultimately so as to go beyond good and evil and establish their own rule against the Creator God.  The serpent, speaking of their eyes being opened, knows of what he speaks.  The fact that he seems not to be dead (at least in a literal, bodily sense) also supports his contention that disobedience will not result in (literal) death.

Scholia on Genesis: Genesis 2:18

June 11, 2024

“Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone (ləbddo); I will make him a helper fit (kənegdo) for him.’”

Man’s ‘being alone’ is actually related to the important ‘separating’ (root bdl) that God does ‘in the beginning’.  Man has been separated out, but has no complement, as light has darkness and the sea has the land.  Therefore man’s definition is incomplete; he is an anomaly without a creature ‘fit’ for him.  This fundamental incompleteness of the human person is at the root of the characteristic drive of desire to find one fitting for ourselves—one who, in being opposite to us, matches the aching loneliness and fills it.  We discover eventually that this desire is for God, in Whose image we were created and Whose temples we are meant to be.  In the present, the sacrament of marriage produces the best analogy to the union of God and the soul.  At last, Adam rejoices in seeing not merely flesh of flesh and bone of bone, but subject to subject, desire to desire.

Who Gave You This Authority?

June 4, 2024

The rosary is a quintessential devotional prayer for Catholic laity and even for some religious, and has been for over seven hundred years.  While at first glance, the repetition of Ave Marias can give the impression of the multiplication of words at the expense of genuine devotion, anyone who prays the rosary will tell you that the important activity is not the recitation of the words, but the meditation on the mysteries of the life of Jesus Christ.  Busying the lips with familiar words allows the spirit to be freed up to attend to consideration of the meaning of Christ’s presence and action, how His very being communicates God’s love and our salvation.

This is in interesting contrast to a different type of devotion to the Word of God, also edifying in its way.  At some point after the invention of the printing press, someone had the idea to set the words of Jesus in red.  Most of us have seen such versions of the gospel.  What stands out are the teachings of the Lord, and of course these can no more be neglected by Christians than the mysteries of His life.

It happens that the past century and a half have seen the rise of a view of Jesus of Nazareth that exalts Him as a great teacher of wisdom, without admitting to the traditional Christian claims of His divinity.  While it would be an unfair exaggeration to say that ‘red-letter’ gospel editions are the cause of this emphasis on Christ as mere human teacher, they certainly offer support to the idea that what really counts are the teachings.  The signs performed by Jesus, so important especially in John’s gospel, are muted along with the rest of the narrative material.

Yet the authority of Jesus is dependent on just these signs.  De-emphasizing Christ’s mystery has the effect of undermining the legitimacy of the very teachings that the red-letter edition is meant to underline.  Jesus Himself pointed to the necessity of the signs: “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works [that I do], that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” [John 10: 38]

Hence the importance of meditation on the mysteries of the rosary.  Seen in this light, the addition of the Luminous Mysteries by St. John Paul II appears even more providential.  Just those sorts of legitimating moments in the life of Christ are added, particularly the Baptism, the Wedding at Cana and the Transfiguration.  These mysteries of light ‘illuminate’ the mind to ‘know and understand’ that Christ was indeed sent by God the Father.  In turn, this illumination makes it possible for us to accept the ‘hard’ sayings [John 6: 60] and to grow in holiness, growing up to be true ‘spiritual’ men and women, not merely wise in the teachings of the wise, but sanctified in the Truth.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »
 
© 2026 Monastery of the Holy Cross
  • Accessibility
Web Design by ePageCity