Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness

Description

BEWARE: Chapter 4, page 148-149, appear to espouse heretical views on adoptionism. The authors, infected with modern heretical theories of criticism, think Mark 1:1 ("the Son of God") is "almost certainly" an addition by a later scribe (p. 142), that "The author of Isaiah never envisioned a virgin birth" (p. 152), and that the Blessed Virgin Mother was St. Joseph's fiancé (p. 156), yet they had a true marriage. They are ambivalent regarding Mary's painless childbirth, and they think it's doubtful that St. John was the favored disciple.

They try to understand the significance of women being mentioned in St. Matthew's geneaology, which was interestinrg.

The authors also buy into the Modernist's "pseudo-Paul" vs. "(real) Paul" distinction.

Also, there are quotes from the blasphemous Talmud and midrashes. No wonder the section on "Mother Zion" does not understand how barren "Mother Zion" could be fruitful. She is fruitful because Holy Church makes converts of the gentiles.

p. 90 (PDF p. 105):

The Bible, however, does not; rather, it recognizes that there are, within the class of women, individuals who do not have children. This is clear enough from the mere presence in the text of such women, and prominent ones: Dinah, Miriam, Deborah.

In the Book of Genesis, the first words God speaks to humanity are "Be fruitful and multiply." From ancient times to today, these words have been understood as a divine command to procreate. Fertility is viewed as a sign of blessedness and moral uprightness, while infertility is associated with sin and moral failing. Reconceiving Infertility explores traditional interpretations such as these, providing a more complete picture of how procreation and childlessness are depicted in the Bible.Closely examining texts and themes from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Candida Moss and Joel Baden offer vital new perspectives on infertility and the social experiences of the infertile in the biblical tradition. They begin with perhaps the most famous stories of infertility in the Bible—those of the matriarchs Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel—and show how the divine injunction in Genesis is both a blessing and a curse. Moss and Baden go on to discuss the metaphorical treatments of Israel as a "barren mother," the conception of Jesus, Paul's writings on family and reproduction, and more. They reveal how biblical views on procreation and infertility, and the ancient contexts from which they emerged, were more diverse than we think.Reconceiving Infertility demonstrates that the Bible speaks in many voices about infertility, and lays a biblical foundation for a more supportive religious environment for those suffering from infertility today.

…major biblical women, at once historical and prophetic figures, such as Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel (who went so far as threatening Jacob that she’d be dead, unless he gave her children, see Gen 30:1; and check out Jacob’s answer the following verse), Hannah, and Elizabeth herself, who conceived “in her old age” (Luke 1:36). So, the problem of childlessness in the account of divine revelation, like other recurring themes, tends to indicate an exemplar of sorts. A little familiarity with Scripture suffices to show that the paradigm is laid before our eyes in connection to the disclosure of other revelations pertaining to a specific antithetical form of childlessness, spiritual childbearing. That is why St. Paul can prophetically say in Galatians 4:27:

Laetare sterilis, quae non paris; erumpe et clama, quae non parturis : quia multi filii desertae, magis quam ejus quae habet virum.

It is as if we had to be reminded that there is more to being fertile than what lies within the natural confines of physical fertility. One way to convey the point, lest we end up idolizing the generative power (as many naturalists and pagans certainly do) is to allow for physical barrenness to befall even some godly souls. Increase of merits probably goes with that particular suffering too, especially if one follows in the patient footsteps of a Hannah or Elizabeth, readily submitting to an unchosen hardship with great trust in and devotion to the Author of life.

Now about “remembering and forgetting,” and the relationship of such actions to God, Who is by essence actus purus. It is a divine pedagogy in His redemptive dealings with us, not possibly an actual deficiency of any sort on the part of the omniscient and omnipotent Creator of all.

Remembering, remember, is ZaChaR in Hebrew (זָכָר), like in Zachariah. It is also the invisible form, in human nature, of the masculine (i.e. the invisible counterpart of sexual masculinity (Gen 2:23)), which is conveyed by ish /אִישׁ). There is in Adam a constitutive memory, which is the root of his true relationship to God. He is to remember God, his only good, always and everywhere. With the advent of sin, we will eventually need a specific ritual, among many prefiguring ones, namely a Memorial in the form of a Sacrifice, to establish a New Testament with the Blessed Trinity, which is the holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Luke 22:19):

hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

(Of possible interest, you may recall and go back to the few pages of that paper I wrote a while ago, titled Prophetic Figures of the Incarnate Word: Adam’s Tetra-Structural Nature & the Model of the Temple, in which [esp. pp. 3 to 6] I expound a little on the deeper function of memory in human nature, according to divine revelation).

Now, we in our fallen state do certainly forget (owing, in particular, to the darkening of our intellects), and so much so that it can and does betray great stupidity on our part, tragically consistent with our being sinful people. In fact, the element of forgetfulness plays a subtle role in the insinuation and ultimate installation of Original Sin. The “deception” from the serpent the woman speaks of in Gen 3:13 is in fact literally an act of caused, induced forgetfulness :

Serpens decepit [הִשִּׁיאַנִי, lit.: “he has made me forget”] me, et comedi.

Hence “the Israelites’ returning to evil / forgetting,” as if they couldn’t help it. And that is precisely the nasty story about sin and idolatry, which forgetfulness nourishes in fallen man, even more so in souls who fail to be mindful of and remember God (which is why, among other reasons, prayer is truly so vital for all).

Also, the kind of repetitive patterns still quite discernable in translations of Scripture are pedagogically intended both with respect to the revealed content, and to the form in which it was originally transmitted, namely orally. Thus, a number of mnemonic formulas run through the whole of Scripture’s 73 Books, betraying something about the intrinsic oral format of these texts, precisely weaved around mnemonic patterns facilitating both memory storage and sacred recitation/transmission.

Finally, “the issue of divine inaction” certainly is a mystery for us. Does that imply divine “passivity?” Not literally so; but there certainly is no contradiction whatsoever on God’s part being the all-knowing purus actus entis and pedagogically dealing with us in a way that suggests He has “forgotten us.” It is in His instructive dealings with us that His divine pedagogy takes on human-like forms, using the great means of analogy to appeal to the suitable modes of our understanding.

So, likewise, in the Incarnation of the Word (which the whole of Scripture speaks of and itself consists of, as a kind of “pre-Incarnation,” dixit St. Augustine), when Our Lord sleeps or rests (for ex. in His infant crib or on a pillow in a ship’s stern, cf. Mark 4:38), would it be at all sound to say that He is less the purus actus entis than in His ad intra sheer activity of processing secundum intellectum? Answering ‘yes’ would of course entail both denial of His divinity and an insurmountable contradiction (since one cannot both be the Pure Act of being itself and at the same time, or at any other time, anything less than Pure Actuality itself). Therefore, as much as God may permit and choose to hide and “refrain from acting in some cases” (while also freely “willing an inequality of goods in His creation”), Our Lord Himself no less affirms the following (John 5:17):

Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.

I think I've understood the purpose of barren women / delayed childbirth before Christ.

From St. Thomas's commentary on the epistle for Lætare Sunday (Gal. 4:22-31):

Sequitur foecunditas quia multi filii , et cetera. Sed cum supra dictum sit Ecclesiam liberam significari per Saram, videtur esse dubium an Sara fuerit deserta. Ad quod sciendum est, quod deserta fuit ab Abraham, ut hic dicitur, non per divortium, sed quantum ad opus carnale. Nam Abraham vacabat quidem operi carnali, non propter concupiscentiam, sed propter prolem suscipiendam. Cum ergo innotuit ei Saram sterilem esse, deseruit eam, non frangens coniugalem thorum, sed quia non utebatur ea ab illo praecise tempore quo Sara introduxit ei ancillam. Per quod datur intelligi, quod Ecclesia gentium deserta erat a Christo, quia nondum venerat Christus, et quod Ecclesia triumphans deserta erat ab hominibus, quibus ad eam nondum patebat accessus. Huius ergo desertae , scilicet Ecclesiae gentium, sunt multi filii , id est plures, magis quam eius , scilicet synagogae, quae habet virum , scilicet Moysen. I Reg. II, 5: sterilis peperit plurimos, et quae multos filios habebat , et cetera. Et hoc veniente sponso, scilicet Christo, a quo deserta erat, non dilectione, sed partu postposito. | He follows with the fruitfulness: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. But since it was said above that the free Church is signified by Sara, there seems to be some doubt whether Sara was desolate. I answer that she was made desolate by Abraham, as it is said here, not by a divorce but with respect to the work of the flesh. For Abraham resorted to the work of the flesh not for the pleasure but to obtain a child. Therefore when he learned that Sara was barren, he abandoned her; not by forsaking the marriage bed, but by not resorting to her from precisely the time that Sara introduced the bondwoman to him. By this we are given to understand that the Church of the Gentiles was left desolate by Christ, because Christ had not yet come; and that the Church Triumphant was desolate of men, for whom no means of entry was open. Of this desolate woman, i.e., the Church of the Gentiles, there are many children, i.e., more than of her , namely, the synagogue, that hath a husband, namely, Moses: “The barren hath borne many: and she that had many children is weakened” (I Kg. 2:5). And this is due to the coming of the spouse, namely, Christ, by Whom she had been left desolate not by want of love, but because the bearing of children had been delayed.
---|---

Baltimore Catechism 3.347:
Q. Why was the coming of the Redeemer so long delayed?
A. The coming of the Redeemer was so long delayed that the world--suffering from every misery--might learn the great evil of sin and know that God alone could help fallen man.