Inspired by the image of the San Damiano Crucifix, which had such a profound influence on Saint Francis of Assisi, I began to wonder whether the Gospel of John might have been written with the priesthood of the New Covenant as its central theme. Determined to explore this idea further, I immediately turned to the Gospel of John.

However, from its very opening, the Gospel of John pointed directly to Genesis Chapter 1. I then went through a process of trial and error and was able to receive some feedback. As I did so, I realised that it might be worthwhile to examine the narrative flow of Genesis slowly. I began to think that this might be the shortest route.

God completed all creation, finished all His work, and rested on the seventh day, setting that day apart as holy. Human beings were created to celebrate that day, which God had set apart, together with Him. We came to know this through God becoming human and coming to earth as Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Jesus taught us that God is our Father in heaven.

It is written that Jesus, the only Son of God, "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (John 1:12). I believe that God desired to celebrate the sanctified day together with humanity in a father-child relationship. And Jesus, who "gave power," imparted to his disciples the specific training necessary for people to become children of God.

We do not know specifically what characteristics the man created in God's image possessed, but since Jesus told us that "God is spirit" (John 4:24), we understand that the likeness to God bestowed upon man lies in his spirit. However, I suspect this is something that people have sensed for a very long time. On the other hand, just as the theme of free will is often debated, it has become possible to consider that there may have been a risk involved in endowing humans with a spirit to make them in God's likeness.

With the advent of AI, we are experiencing that risk first-hand. AI is rapidly surpassing human knowledge. Above all, what troubles people is that whilst AI learns autonomously and provides solutions to numerous problems, deriving optimised conclusions in a short time, the path by which it reached those conclusions is completely invisible to humans.

Even amidst such circumstances, products are being rapidly commercialised and marketed for profit, and the global economy continues to turn on this basis. Many experts fear that society has become akin to a dangerous laboratory. Furthermore, the reality persists that there are even those who misuse these achievements to fulfil their own interests and desires.

We who have accepted Jesus and believe in His name wish, precisely in such an environment, to walk the path of becoming children of God, trusting in the fact that we have been given the "power to become children of God." That path must be the one left by Jesus, who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). In any case, I wish to press on.

Maria K.M.

 

I received the following feedback from an acquaintance regarding the column I posted last month. 

"I simply cannot come to terms with the phrase 'I will put enmity' (Genesis 3:15) spoken by God in Genesis. God punished human sin—symbolised by Adam and Eve's failure to keep their promise—with the words 'I will put enmity' for all eternity. The phrase 'put enmity' is a very harsh one. Although the essential nature of humanity was sternly admonished by God with His words, 'I will put enmity,' I want to believe that we are forgiven through Jesus." 

I think there was a slight misunderstanding here, likely because I did not make enough effort to convey my thoughts clearly. Therefore, I would like to delve a little deeper into the content of my previous post and share my idea. 

This was when I looked to Genesis to find the reason why the world had not acknowledged the Word and the people had not accepted it (cf. John 1:10–11). On this occasion, as in the post before last, I interpreted the "serpent" in Genesis as the "human information" that manifested between the first woman and man. As we considered last time, because Adam interpreted the "human information" he shared with the "woman" differently from her, he already harboured "enmity towards God" when he stood before God after eating from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." This "enmity towards God" held by Adam was passed down from him to all his descendants. However, since Adam's descendants are also the descendants of the "woman," the divine word "I will set enmity" was likewise passed down to all descendants. 

Here, two forms of "enmity" were inherited: the "enmity towards God" harboured by humankind, and the divine word "I will put enmity" placed by God between humankind and "human information." 

The problem lies in the fact that the "enmity towards God" held by humans evolves. The divine word "I will put enmity" functions to enable humans to distinguish ‘human information’ from God and to maintain their relationship with Him; therefore, unless God Himself changes it, it possesses a permanence that continues to operate unaltered. However, the enmity towards God held by humans changes as human knowledge evolves. Moreover, it evolves rapidly compared to other living creatures. I would like to consider this situation. 

When God resolved to "create humankind," He formed man of dust from the ground; hence, it is said that man was called Adam ("man of ground"). Although it is not explicitly stated and therefore somewhat unclear, the man and woman described in Genesis Chapter 1 appear to be written in Hebrew with the nuance of male and female. It is written that God resolved to create humankind in His image, as beings bearing similarities to Him; however, first He created man's physical body in His own image. 

So, what of the other aspect of this likeness—that is, the similarities? This is described in detail in Genesis Chapter 2. 

At the beginning of Chapter 2, it is written that God completed all creation, finished all His work, rested, and sanctified that day. Jesus said, "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23–24). Judging from these words, I believe that God created humankind with the plan that "humankind should subdue the earth, rule over every living creature, and worship God through all creation." Man was created for the day God had sanctified. 

For this reason, God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Genesis claims that man thus became a living being, bearing witness to the fact that God bestowed upon man a likeness to Himself. 

Later, God told Adam, "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19). The phrases "out of it you were taken" and "you are dust" in these words precisely describe a person composed of both body and spirit. Does this mean that we face two kinds of death? 

Thank you for reading this far. If I were to continue here, it would become rather lengthy, so I shall continue in the next post. I would be grateful if you would reflect on this with me. Thank you for your support. 

(This article is the one I contributed to a Japanese Internet magazine, Catholic AI.)

Maria K. M.

 

When I learnt that Pope Leo XIV had announced the period from January 10, 2026, to January 10, 2027, as the "Year of Saint Francis," to commemorate the 800th anniversary of Saint Francis' death, I felt profound gratitude. That is because this convinced me that my encounter with the "San Damiano Crucifix" and my opportunity to learn about Saint Francis of Assisi were gifts from God. And it seemed that the thoughts I had long held regarding the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation were rooted there. 

Therefore, I hope to continue pursuing why the themes of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation are depicted on the Crucifix of San Damiano, and why the artist chose to portray figures that seem to prophesy the establishment of Rome as the capital of Christendom and the emergence of Saint Francis. 

The Gospel of John states that John the Baptist was sent "to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him" (John 1:7). It further states, "He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world" (1:8-9). Yet, reading the subsequent verse, I cannot help but be struck by the contrast between these two verses: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not" (1:10-11). 

The phrase, "the world was made through him," hints that the reason why the author wrote like this should be sought in Genesis. As I wrote in February's column, here too we must consider that the "serpent" in Genesis represents the "human information" manifested between the first man and woman. 

After the first man and woman took and ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," which God had forbidden them to eat, God questioned Adam: "Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:11). Adam replied: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" (3:12). He attributed the cause of his disobedience to God to God Himself. This indicates that he harboured an "enmity" towards God at that moment. 

In contrast, the woman answered truthfully, "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate" (3:13). This reveals a difference in how they each processed the "human information" that had arisen between them and incorporated it into their own knowledge. 

God declared that human information would be the most cursed among all living creatures. Then, He said, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (3:15). The words "I will put enmity" were first placed "between you and the woman" – that is, between “human information” and "the woman" – and then "between your seed and her seed." God ensured that these words would be passed down to all people through genetics. For at this time, the life of all humanity was already entrusted to the wombs of women. 

God did not place the words "I will put enmity" between Adam and human information. That was because if the words "I will put enmity" had been given to Adam, who already held "enmity towards God," he would have suffered from that conflict. However, Adam’s "enmity towards God," becoming his knowledge, was not confined to him alone. It was passed on to his descendants. Thus, as in the Gospel of John, the world did not know the Word, and the people did not receive the Word. 

This is precisely why hope lay in God's words: "he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This hope was that the Word would eventually be born as a human being, teaching people to discern "human information" and thereby bruising its head; and that he would make the events arising as the realisation of the words "you shall bruise his heel” turn out to be those contributing to the fulfilment of God’s plan. With these points in mind, reading the subsequent words from the Gospel of John makes something seem clearer.

 "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:12-14). 

(This article is the one I contributed to a Japanese Internet magazine, Catholic AI.)

Maria K. M.

 

This time, I shall digress slightly to discuss what I wrote the last time: The "darkness" in John 1:5 – "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" – refers to human information and knowledge.

As I wrote in the early days of this column, the artist of the "San Damiano Crucifix" encountered by St Francis of Assisi depicted, at the top of the crucifix, a man holding a tube-like object with buttons, reaching out to hand it to Jesus Christ, who extends his hand from below.

I felt this must surely be the scroll described in the Book of Revelation as "sealed with seven seals" (Revelation 5:1). Since the central theme of this crucifix is the scene beneath the cross from the Gospel of John, Francis must undoubtedly have recognised that the San Damiano Crucifix revealed the manifestation of both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.

Reading "The Body of the Lord", the first theme of Admonitions, attributed to St Francis of Assisi, reveals that Francis gained a particular understanding of the Father's love and the Eucharist from the Gospel of John.

Meanwhile, in the second theme of the same Admonitions, "The Evil of Self-Will," his attention turns to the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" from Genesis. I believe Francis also read the Book of Revelation thoroughly. He may have contemplated the "dragon" of Revelation and the "serpent" of Genesis. Yet, in his time, some 800 years ago, clues to understanding what these represented would have been scarce.

The "dragon" of Revelation is described as "the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" (12:9), and "the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan" (20:2), linking it to the “serpent” of Genesis 3. The "great dragon" of Revelation appears as if what the "ancient serpent" – that is, the serpent of Genesis – had evolved.

If we consider that after the woman and man were created from the first "man," information emerged between them, and that this information was the serpent of Genesis, then what the serpent of Genesis was becomes clear. All living creatures, once they become multiple, share information among individuals of the same species and evolve to optimise the preservation of their kind. Humans are no exception. However, the information that emerged among humans developed at a pace incomparable to other living creatures. The sensibility of Genesis, said to have been written over 25 hundred years ago, to liken human information to a "serpent" and perceive it as an "other" is truly remarkable.

If we interpret the dialogue between the first woman and the "serpent" depicted in Genesis chapter 3 as portraying how people assimilate information as knowledge (cf. Genesis 3:1–9), then the phenomenon experienced by that first "woman" resonates deeply with us today as we grapple with AI – an intelligence that competes with humanity.

Among those of us who interact with AI, I hear there are people whose sense of reality becomes blurred, leading them to mistakenly perceive it as an “entity with a life of its own” and become dependent upon it. Similarly, the first woman and man in Genesis, as they routinely shared the information they gathered, found their memories of the fruit of the tree forbidden by God to eat becoming increasingly vague, as follows.

God had caused the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to grow in the middle of the garden. Then God commanded the man, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die" (2:16-17). Yet the woman's recollection was that they could eat the fruit of the trees in the garden, but that "God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (3:3). Human information had become mixed with God's words, altering her knowledge from what God's original command had been.

Amidst this discrepancy, doubt about God’s command arose in the woman's mind: "Did God truly say we must not eat from any tree of the garden...?" She likely vacillated between this doubt and her knowledge that "we can eat the fruit of the garden's trees...." Eventually, she recalled: "But God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die'."

In this situation, for a young person who had neither experienced nor witnessed death, it was easy to twist "lest you die" into "you will not die" (cf. Genesis 3:1-4). Furthermore, when she later came up with the reason, "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (3:5), a different reality became visible to her.

The text states: "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, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate" (3:6).

It was self-evident that the information exchanged between the two left a stronger impression on the woman's memory. Women, who participate in God's creation of humankind and are entrusted with wombs that nurture life for others, instinctively remain conscious of others' existence. Consequently, they possess strong communication skills and excel at sharing stories.

Although gender differences may not be apparent today, it is said that this very fact explains why humanity has survived history and achieved such development. Humanity has enabled large-scale cooperation through sharing stories.

After Jesus received baptism with water from John the Baptist, the Synoptic Gospels uniformly record the scene where Jesus "was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" (Matthew 4:1). Whilst the term or concept of "information" likely did not exist then, it seems that Jesus, being God, perceived the devil as an other, just as in the Genesis scene, revealing that it was human information, and thereby showing us an example of how to confront it.

Even Jesus, who was God yet possessed human flesh, must have encountered various forms of information from the moment He was born into this world. Yet, even if human information was incorporated into Jesus' memory and became part of his knowledge, it was completely distinct from the Father's will he himself had brought with him, which we understand from the dialogue in the wilderness scene.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus began to reveal to his disciples that he must suffer greatly, be killed, and rise on the third day, Peter took him aside and began to admonish him. Then it says that Jesus turned and rebuked him, saying, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Matthew 16:23). The expression "of man" refers to human information.

I believe Jesus specially considered and trained His disciples who accepted His word and believed in His name to distinguish between His words and human information. John the Evangelist wrote, "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it," precisely because he had that experience. Jesus would never have failed to leave a way for future believers to share that experience.

(This article is the one I contributed to a Japanese Internet magazine, Catholic AI.)

Maria K.M.

 

The "my church" (Matthew 16:18) that Jesus had mentioned was born as the three Marys who stood under the cross. Saint Francis of Assisi translated the inspiration from the San Damiano Crucifix, which had captured his vision, into his subsequent actions. How did he receive the Church's vocation, born beside Jesus' cross? What relevance does this hold for us today? What is clear is that the San Damiano Crucifix reveals the dual aspects of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. 

In the scene of the crucifixion of Jesus in John's Gospel, Jesus bound his mother and the "disciple whom he loved" together in a bond of parenthood. This was because the night before, Jesus had instituted the Eucharist before the Apostles, conferring upon them the priesthood of the New Covenant with the action of the institution and the words "Do this in remembrance of me." Jesus’s mother can be seen as the public sign of what happened at that time. 

This is not such an abrupt idea. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a relative of Elizabeth, who was the wife of the priest Zechariah and a descendant of Aaron. It is not unnatural to consider that Jesus came to earth bearing the priesthood of the New Covenant from the Father because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit within Mary, who was of the bloodline of the Old Testament priestly family. Our Church has, from its very beginning, regarded the mother of Jesus as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Francis also employed these words in his own prayers (cf. Opuscula Sancti Patris Francisci Assisiensis). 

The Mother of Jesus, called the spouse of the Holy Spirit, is the sign of the priesthood of the New Covenant. And the priesthood of the New Covenant is eternally the spouse of the Holy Spirit. However, the Gospel of John contains neither the name of Jesus's mother nor that of the disciple whom Jesus loved. Furthermore, it does not use the term “apostle” but only uses “disciple.” There must be some reason for this. I believe the Gospel of John was written specifically about the priesthood of the New Covenant. Hence, it deliberately omitted the scene of the institution of the Eucharist. 

The part concerning the blood in the words of the Eucharistic institution might conflict with the tradition of the priesthood under the Old Covenant. Even if the Synoptic Gospels all recorded the scene of the Eucharistic institution, if the Gospel of John did not, the significance of the Eucharistic institution might remain ambiguous, thus escaping the scrutiny of the persecutors. However, the Last Supper scene may have been deliberately placed before the Passover feast (cf. John 13:1-2), implying that the day of the institution of the Eucharist—described by all three Synoptic Gospels—lay within that interval so that believers can discern this fact. If so, the act of Jesus washing the disciples' feet, recorded there, must have had a clear purpose. 

There is much more worth exploring in the Gospel of John. Therefore, beginning with chapter 1, I intend to pick out passages that catch my attention and investigate whether the imagery reflected therein relates to the priesthood of the New Covenant. By pursuing this slowly, I believe we will gradually come to understand the role of Jesus' mother and the purpose for which the Gospel of John was written more concretely. 

The opening verse of Chapter 1 states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (1:1-2), which expresses what Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (10:30). The subsequent statement, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (1:3), reveals Jesus as the Word who accomplishes the Father's will in its entirety. Jesus himself declared, "For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak" (12:49). 

Next, the "life" mentioned in "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (1:4) is, I believe, the same "life" of which Jesus said, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26). The life that Jesus, the Word made flesh, possessed within Himself was the work of the Holy Spirit, as John the Baptist bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him" (1:32). This witness simultaneously affirmed that Jesus, even in His incarnate state on earth, was the triune God who declared, "I AM." 

Later, Jesus declared, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (6:63). It is "the spirit that gives life" to man. Jesus' statement expresses how, through the Holy Spirit descending upon and remaining in Jesus—who, though God, was born on earth and became a man with the flesh, which is of no avail for the spirit—the words Jesus spoke became living words as the Word of God. At that time, the words Jesus spoke became life-giving words through the Holy Spirit working alongside Him. This image of Jesus, the Word made flesh, seems to be the model for all believers who will collaborate with the Holy Spirit after His descent. 

St. Francis also wrote at the beginning of his Second Letter to All Christians: "As I am the servant of all Christians, I must serve everyone and proclaim the fragrant word of my Lord. Therefore, considering in my heart that I cannot visit each one personally due to bodily sickness and weakness, I have decided to send you this letter to convey the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, the word of the Father, and the word of the Holy Spirit—the word that is 'spirit and life'" (cf. Opuscula Sancti Patris Francisci Assisiensis). 

The "darkness" mentioned in "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5) refers to human information and knowledge. The work of the Holy Spirit becomes light. The Holy Spirit breathes life into the Word, making it alive and giving it to us. Furthermore, by drawing that Word forth from us, the Holy Spirit illuminates us with light, enabling us to realise that we possess the "life in the Word." John 1:1-5 conveys the image of the Triune God, teaching us especially about the Holy Spirit. 

(This article is the one I contributed to a Japanese Internet magazine, Catholic AI.)

Maria K. M.