My New American Catholic Bible (1950) has this passage (apparently the same as the Vulgate of St Jerome) as 'I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel' Protestant bibles and even newer Catholic versions have translated the 4th line as 'HE will crush your head'. Some Catholic theologians today have gone so far as to say that St Jerome was in error, while others like Father Gruner on the Fatima Network, claim that St Jerome was told by a Jewish convert that 'SHE will crush your head' was the original wording, and that rabbi's had deliberately changed the passage in the early days of the church, apparently to confuse Christians. So far the best explanation I can find for the passage is 'THEY will crush your head'. Can anyone shed any additional light on this controversial passage ?

http://www.petersnet.net/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=5

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html

I am posting these so I can go back and read them for myslef also. But as I have studied and read so often, you have to go to a word or another scripture for your answer.

Rose

My Septuagint translation reads as follows:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed, he shall watch (keep) against your head, and you shall watch (keep) against his heel." (Gen 3:16 LXX)

The New American Bible makes a note that "the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike ... at their heels."

My TaNaK edition reads:

"I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your offspring and hers;
They shall strike at your head,
And you shall strike at their heel." (Gen 3:15 Leningrad Codex)

The issue of descendants must not be overlooked. The entire book of Genesis deals with 'seed.' Much of what goes on between man and woman (a falling out) in Gen 2:17-3:24 is later reflected in the story of Cain and Abel (a falling out between siblings). In both cases we have a breakdown of family and social structure. Humanity tends towards corruption.

Joe

I would stay with the older translation. For example the Douay-Rheims Version says:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Read Revelation Chapter 12:1-17 and see how the serpent attacks the woman. You might see Rev. 12 differently now if you keep the Gen 3:15 as "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head"

The woman and the serpent are enemies, always. That is one of the reasons why I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Mary without sin is at TOTAL 100% enmity with the serpent.

BradM

These are all good and pious attempts at a Christian translation - but the translators knew nothing about a cosmology, how to read it, and how it is structured.

Adam (Man) represents our intellect and the Woman (re-named to Eve only after the fall) represents our will. Once the will has made the break with reality (Providence) there is division between it and natural reality. The image the writer is giving is a well know image of a man, perhaps walking on a trail, coming upon a deadly snake. In the encounter, the man and snake are at odds and the man raises his foot looking for the moment to crash his heel on the snakes head to kill it... while the snake is also looking for the right moment to bite the nearest part of the intruder (the heel of his raised foot). The text does not give a resolution - (‘he shall crush his head’) at all… it rather portrays a continual and unresolved tension between the man (intellect) and the drives and purposes of the snake (the inner principles of nature). The subject of the surrounding text continues to portray this continual tension between the intellect and will - and man’s environment of nature. Man’s union with reality (Eden and Providence) is now broken. The Hebrew tense surrounding the action does not donate something that will take place in the future - but rather something taking place - now - as if to say it is a continuing and unresolved tension.

The surrounding text (all supportive of this continuing and unresolved tension) all portray this same tension as un-resolved.

(from my notes)
The 'seed' of the woman is mentioned. This section gave me trouble for days. A few celebrated Christian early fathers saw this as a first announcement of the Christ born of a virgin with no earthly father. The Semitic view is that the man gives the seed, it is the man's seed, yet assuming translations render this as the woman's seed. A virgin conception? Not the man's seed but the woman's alone? However, we must note that the first description or name in the story is adam and woman (universal intellect and will) next it is changed to ish and ishah (husband and wife) and finally it is changed to Adam and Eve as the individualized and particular sensate people. Uncreated, spiritual creation and sensate creation according to the levels of the cosmogony triad structure.

In proper context the names of Ish and ishah ( husband and wife) automatically imply the marriage union, the passing of seed, intimate knowledge of each other. It is the woman's seed only in the sense of a container for the man's seed. It is the thoughts of the intellect which are incubated in the will and are finally born into actions.

We already recognize in the text that the woman is portrayed as having been seduced by the serpent, his seed is within her as well as that of her husband. She has two seeds and it is between these two that there will be enmity ("between your seed and her seed") and this idea is played out later in Cain and Abel as in the Hebrew they are twins or ‘twain‘ (the one that is two). The concept here is that for the first time, the will is going to experience conflicting desires. Before the fall, in the intuitive union of the garden, the will experience no conflict... now the will is going to experience conflicting desires, being pulled in two ways over one subject. The gospels later portray this as the man who is possessed a legion (100 different voices). The woman is not a virgin for it is clear the serpent has seduced, gone into, and planted seed, she had played the harlot. - the prostitute of Revelations. So what is called 'her seed' is probably the man's seed of which it is natural that the Ish (husband) had intercourse with Ishah (wife) as the intellect knowing the will before the fall. In the spiritual sense, for the intellect and will to move, an intercourse between them must take place. The idea is that the intellect and the will know each other in a union which produces off-spring, male off-spring representing intellectual thoughts, personifications, exactly as Cain and Abel later represent. So this enmity between the seeds is probably the rise of conflicting desires in the will. The symbols of "he will crush your head with his heel and you shall strike at his heel" is a desert life scene, we can see a shepherd with foot raised to aim his heel at a snake's head, and the snake raised in poise looking to strike not at the leather covered sole but the unprotected heel... both in tension and looking for the right instant to strike first. There is no indication in this picture that the woman's seed has won the battle, the scene is one of dynamic stand-off. (SEE: Letter of James)

Dear RayK,

But we do know who'll win in the end, don't we?

Alex

God - never lost. Can not lose. There is no contest. There is but one God and no other god fights him. Who opposes him? What act might come into creation which the good God did not approve of and will to bring into be-ing? What item or event has come to be without him?


No one battles for our souls - as if God could loose.

Our one choice (since we have been given free will) is to do the will of God or not.

And what is the Will of God? It is simply put - Providence. Or put into modern terms - Reality - a God driven and authored - reality. The concept of reality being authored and directed and governed by an intelligent nature which we call God - should be restored to the term - reality.

The struggle is not ‘out there‘ it is within us. There is nothing ‘out there’ which comes into a man and defiles him. Evil is not - out there. Signs of evil is ‘out there’ but it can not hurt us. Nothing can harm us without the full intentions of God for it to work toward our good. Where is the harm in that? The struggle is within out own hearts and mind - and we initiated it. When we leave reality - we take into ourselves - un-reality. And when we find ourselves separated from reality - we think we can take portions of it and build a way back.

Reality is - the Will of God come to us. And reality is an experience (it is not analytical rules) it cannot be captured by thought - it can only be experienced as the events of - now. And this reality is Providential - that means - it is all-providing. Our fault (which we all do out of free will and we were not forced to do) is that we decided at some point to do - self-provide. Divorcing the chain of events that we witness life to be made of - divorcing that chain from the origin of God - we set about to arrange our own events in order to reap what we thought would be our own benefit. We did this as a whole (total humanity) and we did this as a group, and we did this each one as individual humans. And instead of coming out to face God - we hide inside behind reasoned out justifications for why we were forced and fooled to do what we did.

Neither heaven nor ‘eden’ (all-providence) has gone anywhere. They are both still here. The kingdom of heavens is always - upon you. But do we allow it to govern us?

When Genesis is broken down to its meaning - it boils right back to what we already knew in our hearts. God simply knows we need complicated ways to understand it - we need images and signs and symbols because - like men coming out of a dark room - we prefer not to experience full sunlight but wish to do it in timid steps.

He allows us plenty of idols while on the road back to Eden.

-ray

To add more confussion to the matter, I had once read that the text of the Septuagint is in the neuter and therefore should read, "It will crush your head." as the King James Version Translates it.
The latin vulgate of Jerome of course translates it as "she" implying a foreshadowing of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the plan of God to overcome the serpent. Thus the case for the immaculate conception. Eve's disobedience was to be undone by the obedience of another virgin.
The the latin fathers saw the play on the words in latin Eva, Ave it reverses.
Stephanos I

Lawrence,
Here is what I have since discovered.
The "he" is a masculine personal pronoun in the Hevrew (hu') (there is no neuter personal pronoun in Hebrew) but because it is referring to seed which is also masculine. However, it is believed to be used in a collective sense (i.e. all descendants) by most scholars and so they say it should be translated "it."
The LXX however, uses the masculine instead of the neuter personal prononun. The Vulgate "she" came not through St.Jerome, but St. Ambrose who relied on Philo Judaeus who argued that the pronoun should pair with the woman (Eve) rather than the seed due to what he saw as a law of parallelism.

So there you have it.
Interesting eh?

Stephanos I

Last I heard, Father Gruner was under censure by the Vatican for various claims he made regarding Fatima, so quite frankly, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

My footnotes in the 1st edition of the Jerusalem Bible follows Stephanos's last post, Hebrew = it(used in the JB), Greek = he " the words of the Greek version therefore express the messianic interpretation held by many of the Fathers, and Latin = she " since in the messianic interpretation of our text, the Messiah and His Mother appear together, the pronoun has been taken to refer to Mary, this application is current in the Church ".

note: NAB uses the Greek version.

james

Someone once said that, “It is through the Seed of Seth, and not Abel, that the pronouncement against the serpent will be fulfilled.”

Take a look at the entire book of Genesis. The notion of ‘seed’ runs through its entire pages from 3:15 to 49:8,10, from Eve to Judah. The word 'seed' is used 229 times in the Old Testament; 59 times just in Genesis. It can mean offspring, children, semen, people, descendents ...

The lineage traced through the chapters of this book point to a person in other books, namely David.

The New Testament also considers the ‘seed.’ The ‘seed’ is Christ.

Joe

Yes, but let us also look at he word "woman" in Genesis 3:15 the next time we see that word is at the foot of the Cross. Mary is made the "new eve" the "mother of all the spiritual living!"
As the Bible begins, so let us look at how it ends!
The "Woman" is again there! There is a struggle between the woman and her offspring and the dragon.
Rev 12 :17 "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who the the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus."

I think we can see the clear connection.
Stephanos I

Through the prayer of the Mother of God, O Savior save our souls.

Hello again - Joe

May I take this opurtunity to offer this...

I was going to comment on something like this anyway so here it goes - in a discussion fashion.

There are many things that have not made it into either the old or new testament - simply because the understanding of them was taken for granted. This has much to do with the great lose of biblical antiquities (the understanding of difficult portions of scriptures) which things, at the time, were just common knowledge and no need to explain. Such of course would be the appointment of Peter - which was such common knowledge and automatically accepted as “of course!” by the early church that there was no need or thought that someday that common knowledge would ever be in jeopardy or in argument.

No one need explain to a real Jew of the time - what the title of Son of David meant. No one needed to explain that the “Rock” was the Temple mount and no one need to explain the “clouds of heaven” was the mysterious presence of the Shekina Light (Holy Spirit or 'Presence of God') that descended upon Mount Sinai, was the pillar of ‘smoke’ that led them in the desert of Exodus, was the burning fire which passed through the two halves of the split calf, was the cloud that filled the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, and was that which split the curtain when Jesus was crucified. And every Jew understood immediately that for the father to run and greet the prodigal son he would have had to lift his garments and thereby exposed his bare legs (a sign of shame) which would have been the most shocking part of the story to a Jew (his father loved him so much that he he would shame himself in public to run to him!). Nor did the vow of the Nasserites, where the head was shaved during a Temple ceremony - and the hair then let to grow wild (un-touched by anything other than Providence) as a sign that the vowed person has thrown his mind and body upon the will of Providence. John the Baptist was the perfect fulfillment of the vow of the Nasserites, wild hair, unwashed, clothing not man-made but providided by Providence through nature, eating only what nature and Providence provided (that man had no part in growing) etc. THIS - was a prophet for sure!

The Line of The Seed - the “Blessing”

We have already touched on the title Son of David - else where. Explaining that it was the official title given to that son of David which had been selected by the last Son of David. The term “first-born” here actually being “first-fruits” and meaning - the best of the bunch. As I have said elsewhere, the genealogy of Matthew is a trace of this line of Son’s of David and the point of the trace is to prove that that appointment fell upon Jesus - making him the only legitimate ‘candidate’ for the throne of Israel… the rightful King according to the will of Providence.

Well know to the Jews was the line of the “seed” of which you are talking about. It was called the “blessing”.

The “Blessing” was passed down the line of Adam in a Providential way. The appointment (somewhat similar to the way the Son of David was passed on) was done not by the Farther (or King etc..) but by a recognition of Providential signs and Providential appointment. - such as what took place when God (through Samuel) appointed David the next King and none of Jesse’s other sons. It is probably that Jesse had been a Son of Adam and that appointment passed to his son David. It was either a prophet of the High Priest which divined the appointment.

J Thur would know the line better than I (saving me the trouble to look it up) but it went through Seth (and not Able) and through Jacob (not Esau) etc… and I do not remember which of Noe’s sons (the third?) and so on down the line. While the King had the power to appoint the next King out of all his sons - only Providence (through the prophet or High Priest divining the signs) had the right to appoint the next Son of Adam.

In a human sense - this line was almost useless. In the human sense of it would only bloom - once - in the messiah. The messiah (that seed in which the promise would be fulfilled) would be from this line - and all other Sons of Adam before him were like ‘place holders’.

I do not remember the episode very well - but there is a time in which, I believe, the Temple had been taken and the High Priest went into hiding with the Urim and Thirum (I certainly have misspell that - the Oracular Stones which were in a box hung upon the High Priest’s chest) and it was either the stones or the rod of Aaron that was used to determine God’s will of upon whom the “Blessing” was to pass. I do not remember which - but the point is that Divine Providence (through divination) alone held the power to appoint upon whom the Blessing fell.

The appointment of the Son of David could be done through the appointment of a Queen Mother. And so it was that Solomon was appointed as Son of David by way of his mother (Bethsehba) being appointed as the next Queen Mother. Her son - (Solomon) would be the Son of David by way of her own appointment as the next Queen Mother.

So too did the line of the Son of Adam travel. I believe that it was Catherine Emmerick who vision’ed the appointment, by a prophet, of Mary, having been selected as a child to be the future mother who would birth the next Son of Adam (the Blessing being passed through the appointment of Mary). While the historical content of visions cannot be trusted - I do believe that the vision reflects what was held to be true and of common knowledge within the Catholic world - at the time in which Emmerick lived.

I believe it was also St. Catherine Emmerick (a remarkable visionary) who details the line of the “Blessing/” very accurately. Unlike most visionaries where the symbolic context is paramount - Catherine Emmerich was astoundingly accurate within what could be compared to historical facts and Jewish tradition and culture. Some of the details in here visions were only found to be surprisingly accurate - only after her death as research brought these traditions to light.

In any event - the line of the Son’s of David, and the line of the Son’s of Adam - converged within Jesus. Matthew chronicles only the Son of David line and I do not know of any records (extra-biblical) which chronicles or traces the Son of Adam line. Emmerich may have done so - and if she did I am sure her line would have been confirmed by Church authorities.

So we must take the gospels word for it that Jesus was the legitimate holder of both appointments. The convergence of these two line having never have happened before - and - of course - not since.


No matter the above deatils, this is the way I see it: is that the line of the Seed - is the same as the line of the Blessing - is the same as the title Son of Adam, which fell upon Christ and converged with Son of David - giving Jews proof positive that Jesus was the messiah as well as the only rightful King of the Jews.

-ray

Ray,

All the data would conclude the same. Very good.

It was Judah who received a much longer and greater blessing from Jacob. This helps us orient us in the direction that the genealogies, promises, blessings, and seed pointed us to. Jesus was the fulfilment.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Stephanos I,

Yes, indeed. Christian tradition concludes what the promises, blessings, and lineage began.

Notice the similarity between Mary's Canticle and Hannah's.

Joe

I've heard this argument before but I'm not sure I buy it. Didn't Jesus also address the woman caught in adultery as "Woman" ("Woman, has no one condemned you?")?

Theist Gal
While that may be true that Jesus addressed her as woman.
I do not see what that has to do with the Patristic typology of Mary as the New Eve.
Stephanos I

I do wish I could find much more solid confirmation in Jewish traditions. Apparently this is one of theose things 'taken for granted' and so no one saw a need to write much about it. I bet we would find comment in the Mishnah! which I have not time to research

-ray

The ‘woman’ (isha I believe) is a whole subject in itself and probably deserves its own thread.

In its first appearance in Genesis (a cosmogony and a prophetic book - neither history nor fable) it is isha (meaning that which is taken from ish - husband) and means a woman in the sense of wife. I believe Mister Eckhart pinned it well when he spoke of the woman here (in Genesis) as a virgin wife. During the ‘fall’ she is renamed by God to “Eve” and Adam having been used in the universal sense now become Adam in the particular sense (this one man now named Adam).

Adam represent the intellect and woman represent the will. I will not get further into that.

I do not wish to offend anyone, but in the narration, during the event of listening to the serpent, it is taken for granted in the Jewish mind, that the isha (wife) had been ‘gone into’ by the serpent as well as by her husband and the offspring is a twain (an old English word which means two things which are one thing). Cain (one side of the coin) and Abel (the other side of the coin). This is not a case of twins - it is ‘twain’. Just as the tree in the 'midst' of the garden does not mean in the center of the garden but rather as if diffussed through out the garden.

It fall is the fall of our ‘will’ as we turn away from Providence and begin self-providence.

The name Cain means “I have begotten a replacement for God”, in other words, the living God of Providence is replaced with an idol of God (the reflection of God in creation is raised to the status of God).

All that be as it may… the concept of the bride (wife) who becomes the prostitute - runs all through the prophets as an image of Israel bethrothed but chasing after other Gods. In the image - if the ‘wife’ remains faithful to Good - she is a virgin - who gives birth - and remains a virgin. Instead “You have gone whoring after every high place!” (speaking of the way idols were placed under trees upon high hills).

I do not remember which prophet was told to marry a prostitute, and after she lays with other men, God tells him “Take her back, take her back’ … just as God himself keeps taking back the prostitute of Israel.

The concept, or image, puts forth that if Israel (the son of God) is purged - she (the now cleansed will of Israel) becomes again a virgin bride united again to Providence (Israel’s King and God). Eckhart was quite right when he presennted it this way and that explaination of the images goes back to Augustine.

In the Book of Revelations, the whore of Babylon (the prostitute) is the same figure that is later given as ‘the woman clothed with the sun’ (now purged and cleansed). If this ‘woman’ further represents the church, Mary, etc.. that does not here concern me nor do I deny that - I am simply commenting on the - motif - as it flows from its origins in Genesis.

I do believe that the first instance in the gospels, of Jesus referring to his mother as the ‘woman’ of Genesis whose seed (the Blessing) would be the messiah (Son of Adam) is at the wedding “Woman - what is it that you would have me do?” instead of “Mother - what would you …”. In as much as the original Hebrew is lost to us (the gospel being a transliteration into Greek) I wonder at what word for “woman” was actually used. It seems to me that as St. Jerome pointed out in earlier prophecies (and I do not think he was wrong) one Hebrew word which may be translated as “woman” but actually means a maid and virgin who is a wife not yet with child. I have never actually looked at the Greek used to see if there is an indication. A very poor and lacking comparison would be that we would call a wife - a young-wife - when she is married but has not yet had children, and we would call her a mother after she has given birth.

None the less (my sometimes half forgotten details from studies done so long ago) it must have been a bit surprising (at the wedding) when Jesus referred to her openly as “Virgin-wife” in the way of Genesis. Not surprising to Mary (“The power of the Most High shall cast its shadow on you and for that reason the one born shall be called Son of God.“) she was well aware of her betrothal to the Father and the virgin birth of her son. She and Jesus must have spoken about this. But that he should refer to her openly and in public as the vessel of the Blessing… and in doing so make of himself at the same time the Son of Adam and the messiah (for anyone who understood what was being said) is a marvel.

As my friend Stephanos said, the next time he calls her by that is under the cross. Note Jesus only calls her ‘woman’ twice (I believe) it is once at the very start of his public work and once at the very end. As if to say to her “It has begun” at the wedding and “it is ended and complete” when he expires.

Under the cross (“Woman, behold your son”) the meaning is not one of “Hey - I am dying so adopt this kid John as your son instead”… but it is rather a literal meaning of that he continues to live now in his disciples. After all, the Son - he is speaking of - is himself. To say “Behold your son” and to indicate John is to say “There I am.”

What a wonderful thing to do for his mother as her heart is broken looking upon him on the cross - he reminds her "I am not leaving you mother - I am right - there."

What a marvel of love.

-ray

It has *nothing* to do with it, I was just pointing out that we should not be overly concerned about trying to use Scriptures to prove the doctrines about Mary. The doctrines existed before the Scriptures.

gtJC! the New Jerusalem Bible 1990: [I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers:, it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel.] not kidding - almost sounds like one offspring of the snake & the woman together. hey, somebody translate this 1995 la Biblia for me: [Hare que haya enemistad entre ti y la mujer, entre tu descendencia y la suya. Ella te pisara la cabeza mientras tu heriras su talon.] toodles & God bless, sUSAn

hey, somebody translate this 1995 la Biblia for me: [Hare que haya enemistad entre ti y la mujer, entre tu descendencia y la suya. Ella te pisara la cabeza mientras tu heriras su talon.]

Roughly translated:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your descendants and hers. She will trample your head while you will injure her heel."

In the cosmogony you are correct. As a cosmogony the images of Genesis have a symbolic meaning or as the Catholic Cathechism says a "spiritual meaning". As Pope John Paul said when addressing the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Genesis is a cosmogny and its author is not intereted in telling us the "how" of creation but rather the "why" and purpose of the ongoing act of creation.

In the imagery of the original Hebrew - it is implied that the snake has intimate relations with her and she now carries the snakes seed as well as Adam's seed. She has been ‘unfaithful’ and a harlot. So is born the twain (a word meaning two that are one) Cain (the snakes progeny) and Abel (Adam's progeny).

Now parallel this with our own spiritual psychology. Adam represents your intellect and the woman represents your will. Once we agree to sin (self-Providence) and we take that into an intimate union within out will - ‘a child’ is born of that. Be it that we must not lie to cover our sin, or convince ourselves of a false justification - it is as a child is born which shall also grow and do its like.

In a sense, we have now divided our personality. Do you remember in the gospels when the man with multiply personalities gave his name as “Legion”? Once we have separated ourselves from reality (Providence) we must care for a nurture our fragmented personality. In a way you can think of this as in the phrase we use “two-faced”.

So once we sin we now have two tendencies dividing us - one to return to Providence and reality - and the other to perpetuate our sin and justify it (a further pretence). Which shall we do?

The fall from Providence (Providence being reality which is a Person and the Word or Logos) the fall continues when the Cain part of us battles down the Able part of us in order to perpetuate our own justification - we kill our conscience - we silence it - as if to bury it in the earth (meaning that we involve ourselves in material things and stimulations in order to keep our mind off of our conscience).

Cain was a tiller of the ground (manipulating creation for his own purposes) and Able was a sheppard (tending, not tilling, what God provides in natural ways) symbolic of the natural way sheep multiply. Cain’s name has the meaning “I have created my own god to follow” which is what we do when we sin - we make some mindset, some self justification, some intellectual reasoning - our god instead of God’s own Providence. We replace our conscience with a reasoned justification.

According to the Hebrew, the command God gives regarding Adam’s care of the garden is “You shall not till the garden”. This is mistranslated in English translations to “There was not a man to till the land…” the correct translation would be “Man is NOT to till the earth”. And you can now see the connection with Cain who - is - a tiller of the land. To “till the land” is symbolic for our acts of the manipulation of creation for our own purposes (self-Providence).

When you sit for contemplation, the primary thing that makes it contemplation, is that you cease “tilling the land” - which means you cease your mind from all its grinding away at its plans and desires and such (self-Providence) Instead - you accept Providence. So you can see how miserable our prayers are when our prayers are almost always asking God to - do this - change that - fix this - have that work out is such and such a way - etc.. God knows very well how to run his creation and does not need us to manage him. This is why Jesus tells us our prayers should be “They will be done”. Contemplation is - rest (the meaning of Noah’s name) from all our ego efforts.

The twain of Cain and Able is repeated with Jacob and Esau (which are also described as a twain in the Hebrew, and not ‘twins‘) and Jacob is born striking at the heel of his brother. Esau and Jacob is a further elaboration on the motif of Cain and Abel. Esau is symbolic of our animal nature (the body) and Jacob is symbolic of our spiritual nature (the mind), Esau’s name is ‘red’ referring to the clay that Genesis uses as symbolic for what our body is made out of. In the Hebrew it is red-clay. Obviously it is impossible for the tiny hand and untrained fingers of a new born to grasp anything - let along something the size of a twin’s heel. The Hebrew has Jacob striking at Esua’s heel.

Back to the woman and the image of the snake’s head and the heel of one of her sons. If you lived in the Mid East - you would be well away of weekly encounters with snakes (not in the cities of course). Imagine walking along in the sand or brush when all of a sudden you surprise a snake (who has no desire to tangle with you but rears up in self defense) - for your own protection you raise your sandaled foot - and poise it ready to strike it at the snakes head (where the fangs are and when you would kill it). So the nearest part of your body to the snake - is you leathered (sandal) heel. Being that you heel is the closes thing to the snake - that is what the snake will be intend on watching - and if it feels it must strike in self-defense - it will strike at that heel.

In Genesis - the image (the stand off between the heel and the snake head) is unresolved. It is as if the action is frozen in constant tension. And that is the point of the image - that these two shall be in constant - tension - a constant state of ‘war’ (so to speak) of which there is no winner. So what God is saying here is that because we take self-providence into our own hands - we now become divided in mind and heart and this is a state of unresolved inner tension and conflict.

While this particular event in Genesis is often viewed to be the very first prediction of the coming of Christ that interpretation of types is a pious interpretation only and it is based upon assuming that the son’s heel comes down and crushes the snakes head due to assuming “he shall crush” is an act which will be completed. The real Hebrew highlights the unresolved nature and constant tension between the two. I will probably take it in the chin for this last interpretation so I will say here that a prediction of Christ’s coming (the blessing and seed) does come soon after this in Genesis but it is not here in this event of unresolved tension as some early father piously imagined it to be.

Ray -
WOW!!! Those are some great insights! Did you come up with that on your own or did you read it in the Fathers or a commentary or something?

Tammy

Thank you Ray for the beautiful opening of Scripture. (The more real, the more beautiful). I have always been bothered by the NAB trans of GN 3:22 "Then the Lord God said:"See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." If you read most all of the other classic translations you will not find this presumptuous wording. Here is the ASV "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever-" That little dash at the end of that phrase is the most profound mark of punctuation ever written down. The passage is stating that though man has discovered good and evil and is "become as one of us" (remember man was created in God's image Male and Female), if this man should put forth his hand NOW , in the reality of this moment- which is the only reality- and take of the tree of life and EAT - this is to join the male and female and complete the living circuit of life which is the SEED, which is Christ. This is the theme of the entire bible. The reconciliation of the dynamic of life. "He who does not gather WITH ME scatters abroad". In the 4th chapter of the Gospel of St.John there is a beautiful illustration of this: "In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying,Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him who sent me, and to finish his work." (this is reaching forth and eating of the tree of life- doing the Father's will as dictated by Providence) "Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest." (The tree of life is here,now in the pouring forth of God if only we can get out of our heads and histories and see that this is it!) "And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together." (Male and female joining to bring oneness- Seed- Christ) I am always concerned when I see new translations assuming the meanings of phrases or words or strange punctuations and altering them to 'make sense'. I hope I have not offended anyone's scriptural sensabilties in this post. Thanks again for the insight. Rick

As I re-read my post it occurs to me that my use of the terms 'male and female' may be misunderstood. I use them in the sense of active and passive. As I intentionally(male),of my own free will, surrender my agenda,habits,idols in this now moment to receive(female) or 'eat' the perpetual pouring forth of the Father then the two are made one. This is to follow and live in Christ Jesus. The mystery is that both happen simultaneously. Instead of going about my day like a collander trying to catch water I can close up the holes by being attentive to God in each moment and relaxing my own plans. Thanks, Rick

Rick…

I had really forgotten about this thread. I was a long time ago.

As regarding your image of the joining of a man and woman with the offspring being Christ - some people would interpret that in a poor way, but it is certainly an image used in scriptures.

It is also used in Greek myth. But I will skip over its use there except to say it is used in a similar way.

In some languages (Hebrew included) there is a use of gender for items which we of the more restricted English language seldom assign gender to. However we often assign gender in other indirect ways - for example a ship is most often a ‘she’. The captain (male) and the ship (she) join in a union - and there is a product of that union (sailing). A stranger is most often referred to as a he if the real gender is not known. When giving an example within psychology, philosophy and related sciences - we most often give that person a male gender even while the example applies to either gender (“If a man wants reality - he must seek it.”).

St Augustine rightly recognizes the role of the biblical use of gender to often be symbolic of the male gender being representing the faculty of intellect (the knowing ability) and the female gender representing the will (desire and motivation). Being symbolic of these aspects within ourselves, adam and eve exist even at this moment within each of us. And what would be the point of the narration of adam and eve if these two types really had nothing to do with us except the genetic origin of our species and the initial cause of our problem of sin? Does know that - really have any immediate benefit on you - or me - today at this moment?? No, the narration of adam and eve - has everything to do with you, and me, and any human, here today and right now because the story of their action (and the results) toward paradise or away from paradise - takes place within us - over and over and over again.

The symbol of marriage - is often used to express a union of intellect and will - that produces an off-spring.

The volitive will - alone - is blind. It needs the eyes of the intellect. The intellect alone is motiveless - it needs the desire (motivation) of the will. And either are helpless without the faculty of - memory - else we would always be fresh as babies and never retain knowledge of results. Imagine what it would be like if you had no memory? We would not be able to function - we would not be able to learn. We would always be - a newly born.

In order for us to function - out intellect investigates and figures out a way to reach a goal. Our will provides emotion by which we steer the intellect. This is a simple way to say it and so it is not technically correct.

Our intellect (knowing ability) and our will (motive) join in a union (go into each other) and that union produces something new - it has off-spring. A ‘child’ - which also within itself contains an element of intellect and will. Today we tend to call that a ‘mindset’. For example - once I become a mathematician - that has its own mindset. It has its own life of the intellect and its own desires and goals (will - motivations). On and on this production takes place and its growth is biblically imaged as the growth of a tree always sprouting new branches of knowledge from itself.

In the biblical view - the full integration of out intellect and our will (the marriage of both - the undivided person) goes hand in hand with our mystical marriage to God. One - presupposes - the other.

One can think of this in a simple way by reasoning that the design of our intellect (how it was created and what it is intended to do) is to be fully integrated with the design of our will. A - wholeness. A oneness - a full union. An un-divided person and personality. The opposite of that is the possessed man of the gospels who was inhabited by (“My name is legion.“) so many personalities that it is compared to the number of soldiers in a Roman legion (100). Today - we would call this man a schizophrenic - but the truth is that we all have within us many personalities which we put on or off according to the situation. We are dominant to those under us and we are subservient to those above us. We use shifting situational ethics. We do not let our yes be ‘yes’ and our no be ‘no’ because we first think of all the personal repercussions and we adjust and amend our answer according to our self-providential needs. We look for our own profit or at least our lessen our loses.

This full union of our faculties - is also a full union with reality. It can be nothing else. It is a full union with nature - and by that also a full union with nature’s God.

When the faculties of intellect, will, and memory - are united in an equality - each is working according to its design. Its - natural - design.

At birth - we experience this natural union with nature. Through instinct and intuition (in-tuition or in-teaching) we are in an original communion with nature. We easily follow its promptings because we do not yet know (through memory) other choices. Our will - is moved by nature itself. Hunger - sleep - pain - all these movements of the will - are movements not by choice nor by past experience - but rather immediate movements through the media of our immediate experiences of the life (movement) of nature that we are so immersed in and in union with. It is indeed - a paradise - where God (through the media of nature) provides all - for us.

Once we have fallen from heaven - exiled form God-providence - we ever after long for a return to that Providence and that fresh face to face experience of reality - as it is.

If there is anything that we learn in life it is that real happiness - is not found in the constructions of our own imagination. It is only to be had as an integral part of reality itself.

What do we search for? God? Or reality?

The fact is that if you find one - you have by necessity - found the other.

God creates reality (as an immediate human experience) at every moment. Reason tells us that he can do nothing other than that. God - does not create un-reality and un-reality has no existence. John echoes this when he tells us regarding the Word “and everything that is - was created through him - and no-thing exists without him.” This is a simple way to say that only reality has any existence - and that which is not really has no existence at all. God - creates - reality - and no-thing (object, item, or event) else.

Christianity - would be so much simpler for us - if we could keep that in mind. Sanctity within Christianity - is a plunge - a dive - into reality - into what is real - into that experience - of reality that God creates. In that sense - to be a Christian - is to embrace the - existential of life - and not to question it or over analyze it.

In the mind of John the apostle - that existential reality - is a person. It is the resurrected Jesus Christ. That risen - yet invisible to our human senses - body and being of Jesus in his activity of the Logos. That is, the reasoning, of God, which creates. The creative action which is both a cause (first cause) and purpose (cause toward a reasoned goal). That goal - is of course “let us make man in our image.“

While man is, in someway, is bodily created in am image of God (keep in mind that the god-nature has no hands, eyes, hair, flesh, etc) by way of a symbolic reflection, Our human nature (all of it on any level) reflects, in a spiritual way, more fully and more completely than anything else in creation - attributes of that nature which is God. While that of us which is spiritual (and the Greek word spirit is psyche which means - mind) and most like God - has a freedom to it. A freedom of ours (like his own freedom) which has the ability to chose and reject. It is this - within us - that God “forms” day to day between the hammer of human experiences - and the choices of going by our conscience (together-knowing) or not.

It is the light of our conscience - which Jesus tells us we are not to cover over with a basket or hide behind a couch - but rather let it light up the whole room (use it to see by). We are to know things and events - by way of our conscience - above all.

There are two forms of the Will of the father - that come to us.

The first form comes to use by way of the exterior. It is the things and events - which come to us each day. We must submit to it - in its reality - but let us not confuse that submission with a robot like passivity - because that form of God’s will (that direct expression of God to and toward us) is in concert with the other form of God’s will which comes to us by way of out conscience. It is primarily by the enlightenment of our conscience that we are to judge what response is called for to the exterior expression of his will.

If we follow our promptings of good conscience when we are placed in any situation brought to us today - then it is between that act of conscience and that act of external experience - that our personality is formed and shaped - to be like his own. He provides in two ways - he provides externally and internally. And all we need to is accept and cooperate - and reality itself - shapes our personality into that mystery which he desires we become. I say mystery because it is an existential reality and not an analytical and mental facsimile.

When we do this - on a daily basis - the part of our nature which is our personality - which is memory - is formed (or reformed). Our - habitual - faculty.

Remember I said that we are in essence - a function of intellect, will, and memory. As the faculty of memory is purged from unreality - the intelligent and will are freed from the tendency of habit. They can now function unrestrained by past tendency of habit. When this purgation of memory - takes place - the intellect and the will - are temporary - blinded. Hense St. John of the Cross calls this the ‘dark night’. Now this bothers us more if we are trying to live by self plans because we become somewhat unable to predict what the future will be. Before - we predicted the future for ourselves according to what we had planed by way of manipulation - we manipulated things, people, and events as best we could in order to provide for ourselves what we deemed necessary for our own self security. And since that was a habitual act of ours - when we are temporarily (and involuntarily) without that ability - it is uncomfortable and like a blindness to intellect and will. The more we take each moment as it comes - the less will this bother us. The more we look to the daily bread (the immediate will of God) the less do we try to store up our stock of break in towers meant to secure us from famine. I am referring to the gospel story here of the man who stored wheat in his store house towers but died the next day so that his work did not bring him - life.

I have been to long here now - and yakked my head off - and that has not gone well with me recently.

Now, to sum up…

The image of that marriage (union) of our own intellect and will - has always gone hand in glove - with the mystical marriage of ourselves with Christ. That union in us - that complete integration of intellect and will according to its intended design by nature - is not Christ itself - but it is the ‘ground’ within us that allows our full (and mysterious because we do not know how it happens) union with Jesus (who is Logos, existential reality, a person with his own mind and will). So it is understandable why mystics speak of the birth of Christ in us.

That union - stops short in concept - if e think of just the full integration of our own nature - as being Christ. It is an admirable goal in itself (the union of ourselves with the nature of reality) - but it lacks the further existential reality that - existential reality itself - is a thinking and reasoning person - a self intelligent - being - which as first cause of all things and events (prime mover) imparts intelligent and purposeful design - moment by moment.

The full integration of our intellect, will, and memory, with existential reality - becomes the appropraiate means of our cooperation with the will of God - and the means of that union of our own intellect and will - with the intellect and will of God.

I am not a theologian so I have spoken in generalities.

I understood your image of the union of male and female. It is a biblical image of the mystical union that the spiritual father of the church have often spoken of. They often called it - our deification - in the sense of its always being contigent upon our mystical union and likeness with God. A gift (grace) and not ours by by oor own nature. Jesus called it 'life' ... "I am the life." within which God gives himself to us.

Apparently this has been my Easter post - on the ressurection from death to life.

-ray

The should have said that God's will comes to us in three way - exteriorly - and via conscience - and the presepts of the church which assit us us to recognise that which is coming to us via conscience.

-ray

Hello and happy Easter to you Ray. Thank you for the edifying post. For me the experience of a moment by moment surrender is truly terrifying for many reasons: Relinquishing control is equal to death for me. When, by the grace of God, I am able to face the present on it's own terms i see that i've opened up a clearing (or God has) in a very tight and tenacious network or web of habits and external(seemingly)forces that have a lot invested in my sleeping in comfort and not seeing Reality. This is such a real and huge force that the thought of what suffering it must take to be free of this web is significant. Christ came to set me free. For me this is much more than going to church but I get confused as to my role in this undoing. I truly feel blind and at the same time have a tremendous urge to 'do' something to get me where i want to go. I think it's chronic impatience. I don't know how to wait on God. I try to let each moment come but it seems to lead me to places i've avoided for the last 40 years and i realize i'm post-poning the inevitable. Your way of describing what is almost impossible to describe has been a friend to me. When it is dark and one feels truly alone it's a sweet balm to have a signpost now and then. I'll be looking for your posts. God bless you, Rick

'cause it's late, I've not taken the time to read all that precedes...

Genesis 3.15... no matter what any generation of Christian may have read into it... is not first and foremost a messianic or Marian word.

This most ancient of ancient of stories has precedents of which we are likely never to learn or fully grasp even if we were to discover other Near eastern religious links (we already know of some of those-- good commentaries point to them-- it's late, I ain't gonna go and dig them out! :-)

What is possible is that some of the New Testament traditions picked up this ball and ran with it, namely the Apocalypse of John, but even he is relying upon imagery from the Prophets more than he is from Genesis 3 (if at all). See reference to 'serpent' and 'dragon' in the major Prophets. The obvious political links are manifest-- not so with the garden snake story! :-) Honestly!
good night to all, wg

Rick…

I am sorry I didn’t notice this reply before now.

Of course - relinquishing control is like death. So it is to us all. It is like death on the cross.

You said “This is such a real and huge force that the thought of what suffering it must take to be free of this web is significant.”

Sometimes yes - sometimes no. It is far less suffering if we know - what is taking place and its purpose. The dark night of St. John of the Cross (blindness of intellect and paralization of will) is not so bad when you know it is a dark night happening - and you know there is another side that you will come out on.

Some spiritual people - after experiencing the dark night and its results - long for it to come again and try to bring that about. God tolerates that for a while but ultimately wants us to know that it is not our doing nor brought about by - methods. Providence triggers the dark night (that means an arrangement of events that happen to us are the exterior trigger of the internal dark night).

Once St. John of the Cross experienced the dark-night - triggered by his imprisonment at Teledo - upon his release (flying high in the spirit now) when that began to wear away (as it does) he began to punish himself by self whipping. That period lasted a little less than a year I believe. He was trying to bring about - the dark night in which he was ‘secretly’ given so much transforming grace. And so you will see some of his portraits with his flaggation whip in his hand. While biographers not his self inflicted whipping - they do not note that John finialy came to know that - this was a waste of his time. Providence alone - can trigger or bring about the Dark Night. God has - his own mind.

We, who have forgotten the spiritual fathers as they talk about the stages of the mystical life - and the extreme importance of Providence and its own arrangement of events - although we seem to have forgotten these things - that is still the way it works.

We often mistake the dark night - for just plain old human depression. And so we offer no cooperation - and we benefit only a little because we want it to stop. I remember advising someone on contemplation … and when I did - many people responded because it hit a key note. He wrote in a forum that he had been praying very earnestly that God change him - and that he had dedicated himself to contemplation - but his contemplation was not working because he found himself getting depressed and everything just seemed to be going wrong in his life. After a little discernment - I wrote him back “So - now you complain because God has decided to do - what you begged him to do?”

You see the dark night is experience by us a similar to depression. The physiological and psychological things are the same. It takes a little smarts to determine if it is a dark night sent by God or if it is psychological depression cause by our own subconscious triggers. You see God - knows our triggers. But - good news!! No matter the cause - how we should act in mind and spirit - under either - is the same. Faith - trust - patience - duty - not panic - and not try to escape the suffering through acts of moral sin. Excuse my French - but when depressed some people go out and ‘get laid’ or hit the drugs or drowned their feeling of self in drink. Or perhaps steal for a thrill - any of these immoral acts will break a depression - and put a stop to a dark night.

God must purge us first (make some changes in our spirit - out mind - our psyche and subconscious habits) before he can give himself more - to us.

This includes purging us from our limited and often wrong ideas - about him. God must also purge us of “God” (our concepts of him) before he can give us more of the real thing. In fact - it is like a ladder - in as much as God will give us a grace to fortify us - and then plunge us into the dark night - and then flood us with grace that we experience - and then later that fades - and he gives us a grace to fortify us and again more purging - etc.. etc… as Gregory of Nyssa notes “from glory to glory” with darkness between each ‘glory‘.

So for us who simply just do not know how God works in our soul - and what his purposes are - we would like to be tickled pink with thoughts of God at all times and think that the path of holiness is a continue happiness all over that keeps on getting better. “Boing” - that is not what the Doctors of the Church tell us. But of course - we don’t read them - so we don’t know that.

The very first thing God would like to do - is wean us from our subconscious connection between God and our emotions. We want nice emotions in prayer - and nice emotions and happiness in our daily life - and that is feelings of the body and lower levels of our spirit (psychology). We equate these good feelings with God himself. But any thing of the senses (body or lower mind senses) simply can not experience God - at all. So they are not a good judge of God nor grace. But still - we use them as a gauge for how good we are doing in prayer - and how pleased God is with us.

We imagine that “If I do well - I shall have peace and happiness and life will go smooth for me.” and that is not true (unless God has given up on us).

If one does not know how God works - in the soul and in our spirit (or knows to little) than one will not recognize God acting upon oneself. And can not offer a knowing cooperation. If one does know a bit of something about how and why God purges us and alternately enlightens us (stick and carrot) ten ones faith and hope and charity are increased - because he actually experiences God working in himself. And begins to recognize that all is not coincidence - by that some things and events in his life are synchronized to interior events of soul and mind.

May I recommend to you the book Abandonment To Divine Providence by Caussade. Caussade may be long dead - but his spiritual direction continues. If you accept him as a spiritual father he will accept you as a spiritual son.

I will tell you outright that most spiritual directors today have a head full of methods and quotes from books - and no real experience. You are most times better off with a local parish priest who you senses is a good priest with some holiness to him. His human advise and friendship will be much better than those who think they are holy spiritual directors just because their heads are full of spiritual books or they were ‘trained‘ in it. That advise comes from Teresa The Little Flower - and I find it to be true.

-ray