The Gospel of John portrays John the Baptist from a slightly different perspective than the Synoptic Gospels. Considering that John's Gospel centres on the priesthood of the New Covenant, I believe the author wanted to make full use of the fact that John the Baptist was born into Aaron's lineage, which held the legitimate priesthood of the Old Covenant. 

As the Gospel of Matthew clearly states, Jesus was born of Joseph of the house of David as his earthly father—He was born into David's lineage. For this reason, I believe that regarding the priesthood of the New Covenant—even though Jesus Himself brought it into the world—a prophecy by John the Baptist, who was of a legitimate priestly lineage, was indispensable. Although Jesus was God, He lived as a man amidst such social perceptions of the time.

Furthermore, Jesus had to fulfil the words the angel had revealed to Mary: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (Luke 1:32–33). 

After instituting the Eucharist, Jesus said: "You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom" (22: 28–29), thereby ensuring that the authority of the Apostles he had chosen would be passed on. In this way, Jesus fulfilled the angel's words. 

Meanwhile, the priesthood of the New Covenant conferred upon the Apostles at the institution of the Eucharist through Jesus' words, "Do this in remembrance of me" (22:19), was hidden in their memory. This was so that, when the Apostles and their successors celebrate the scene of the institution of the Eucharist as a memorial after the descent of the Holy Spirit, sent in the name of Jesus (cf. John 14:26), the Holy Spirit might draw forth from their memory the words and actions of the priesthood of the New Covenant; and, in union with them, make the time of Jesus present and bring forth the Eucharist. 

John the Baptist prophesied these things, saying as follows:

"No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:27–30). 

I believe this prophecy likens the Holy Spirit, who would be sent in the future in the name of Jesus, to the "bridegroom," and the priesthood of the New Covenant to the "bride." Just as John the Baptist was born into the legitimate lineage of the old covenant priesthood and received from heaven his role as the one "sent before him," so too do the Apostles and their successors receive the priesthood of the New Covenant from heaven, becoming those "sent before" the Holy Spirit, and bearing witness to the prophetic words of John the Baptist. 

A priest who keeps the priesthood of the New Covenant hidden in his memory is truly like a "friend" of the Holy Spirit, who draws words and actions from the priest's memory during the Mass to make the time of Jesus present and to bring forth the Eucharist. In the priest, we see one who hears the Holy Spirit’s voice in his own voice, becomes the hands and feet of the Holy Spirit, and works with a selfless heart. 

Priests who collaborate with the Holy Spirit seem to be living out John the Baptist's prophecy: "He must increase, but I must decrease." And I believe that, in doing so, they too are repeating the words: "therefore this joy of mine is now full." 

As "my church" (Matthew 16:18) of Jesus, who received the priesthood of the New Covenant, how should we, believers, live to preserve this treasure? 

Maria K.M.

 

I began this series of reflections assuming the Gospel of John might have been written with the priesthood of the New Covenant as its central theme; however, I found myself drawn from its opening passages to the Book of Genesis and have remained there ever since. Meanwhile, I have found the reason why the name of the Father appears so frequently in the Gospel of John. That has been a great reward. 

After reframing my understanding to recognise that God, who forbade humankind from taking and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis, is our Father, I re-read the story of the first two humans who disobeyed God in Chapter 3, and the account of Cain’s murder in Chapter 4. In doing so, I began to see in these narratives the image of a father struggling to manage his children’s misdeeds and a father striving to save his children who have sinned, facing them head-on by any means possible. 

This understanding led me to the meaning of Jesus’ words in his prayer at the Last Supper: "While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me" (John 17:12). For us believers, these words of Jesus suggest that the very act of calling God ‘Father’ holds within it immeasurable potential. 

Furthermore, we can understand that calling God "Heavenly Father" is also a way of calling upon Jesus because Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The name "Jesus" embodies the fact that the hidden meaning revealed to Joseph by the angel in a dream—"He will save his people from their sins"—and the very essence of the name, "God with us," were both realised simultaneously in Jesus (cf. Matthew 1:21–23).

Jesus calls us to call God, who planned this, "our Father in heaven." I believe the passage in the Gospel of John that states, "And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace" (John 1:16), expresses Jesus’ desire to ensure that we remember, above all else, that God is our Father. Indeed, Jesus was the one who was sent by the Father and revealed the Father. 

God is our Father. This sense, nurtured by the words of Jesus, draws our attention to the phrase "he gave power to become children of God" in the passage which states, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (John 1:12). 

By following Jesus' formation and calling God our Heavenly Father, we can respond to His grace, accept Jesus, believe in His name, and preserve the "power to become children of God" that has been granted to us. We have something to preserve. I believe recognising God as our Heavenly Father is proof that we are the people to whom the priesthood of the New Covenant has been given. 

Together with John, the author of the Book of Revelation, we can pray: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Revelation 1:5-6). 

Maria K.M.

 

On 14 July, the YouTuber Goro Yamada passed away. He was 67 years old. He graduated from the Faculty of Humanities at Sophia University, joined Kodansha, and after retiring, began running art history-related courses on YouTube. I came across his courses when I had long been dissatisfied with the standard explanations of Genesis Chapter 3 and was searching for a way to resolve this situation. 

In any case, I am convinced that Adam and Eve were boys and girls who had not yet reached puberty. The words of Jesus, who taught that God is our Father, are absolute in my mind. Since God—who forbade them from taking and eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil—is their Father, I do not believe He would have regarded their taking and eating of the fruit as a mistake or a sin; rather, I interpret that He was focused on dealing with the consequences. 

Furthermore, it seems strange to suggest that God's command regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a covenant or a promise with humankind; indeed, the idea that this should lead to punishment seems utterly inconceivable when one considers the will of God, our Father. I believe that even if a child were to make a mistake whilst on the path of growth granted by God—even if that act were to appear as turning one's back on God the Father—God would never regard it as sin.

 It is not deniable that humanity harboured hostility towards God. However, God, who fully knows the human mind, responded with "God's enmity" to the information that had caused this hostility (cf. Genesis 3:15). This is the attitude of a parent who gives medicine to a child who has fallen ill. At the same time, He secured the future of their descendants. Indeed, thanks to this, Cain—despite having sinned by murder—turned back to God in fear of his own actions and was saved. 

Jesus said, "Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (John 8:46). Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John begins with the scene in which Jesus helped the woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus did not condemn her but taught her what the sin was that was trapping her. He knew her heart intimately. 

Thus, just as it is written, "All things were made through him [the Word]" (John 1:3), Jesus—who is the "Word"—has always engaged in dialogue and persuaded people whom He Himself made to set them free and guide them to God. 

Looking back at Genesis chapter 3, I am impressed that God has always acted just as Jesus does. Genesis marks the beginning of God's great plan to bestow the priesthood of the New Covenant upon humankind. To this end, from the story of Noah onwards, Genesis tells us that God began in earnest to train people. When the time had fully come, Jesus came into the world bearing that grace. 

From a very young age, I had held the view that "Adam and Eve were a boy and a girl." In the heat of my youth, I once voiced this theory at a Bible study group. The priest then laughed and said, "They were a married couple, you know." 

I pointed to a passage in the Bible and said as follows: "I think the line 'They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons' suggests they had not yet reached puberty. Furthermore, the passage stating, 'Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain,' refers to the time after they had been expelled from the Garden of Eden." 

He immediately responded, "They had no children in the Garden of Eden, but they did engage in sexual relations. That is what the Church teaches," and moved on to the next topic. 

Admittedly, the only theologian who viewed Adam and Eve as still being children was Saint Irenaeus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, who appeared in the second century; it seems later thinkers never even considered the possibility. However, for us who have learnt from Jesus that God is our Father, this seems to be a crucial turning point. 

Whilst I had been pondering such matters for decades, I accidentally found Mr Yamada's lecture on YouTube. It was then that I learnt there had been a long period in the history of painting when depicting the human nude was forbidden. However, it seems that such depictions were permitted within the realm of sacred art—such as myths and angels—and the scene from Genesis Chapter 3 was, of course, a perfect theme. 

By taking Adam and Eve as the subject, one could boldly depict the human nude. It is therefore only natural that the "Adam and Eve were adults" theory became firmly established. This understanding made perfect sense to me. Even if it wasn't absolute truth, it served as a breakthrough for me. 

From then on, I began watching his lectures from time to time with great interest. So, it came as a shock when I heard the news of his passing. However, my eyes were immediately drawn to a photograph from the funeral. It showed St Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo. I gave thanks to God. And to Mr Yamada, thank you! 

Maria K. M.

 

I remember being deeply moved by the following passage in Chapter 2 of the Book of Genesis when I first read it. A majestic landscape suddenly sprang to mind. Yet now, it calls me to reflect. 

"A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates" (Genesis 2:10–14). 

In Genesis chapter 1, God created man "in our image" (verse 26); in chapter 2, He formed man from the dust of the ground (verse 7), breathed into him the breath of life (ibid.), and bestowed upon him "our likeness." This was so that humankind might live in spirit and truth to worship God, just as Jesus later said: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). 

I believe that the "Garden of Eden" may refer to the memory of our primordial experience with God. Memory is always a treasure trove of knowledge. Therefore, I consider the "river" mentioned in the passage "A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden" to be the human knowledge that God bestowed upon humankind in a manner proportionate to man. As it is also connected to the spiritual realm that manifests "our likeness," it can water the whole person. 

Consequently, I considered that the "four rivers" mentioned in the passage, "there it divided and became four rivers," might refer to the four functions that circulate throughout the entire physical realm of a human being, created "in our image." Thus, the first river, Pishon, seems to symbolise the reproductive function—which produces offspring, a form of wealth—as indicated by the phrase "there is gold." This function is also closely linked to the hormones that regulate the mind and body. 

When God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1:26), the human reproductive function—which brings forth humankind as descendants who will live with spirit and truth alongside their physical bodies—is indeed worthy of being described as "there is gold." 

As it is written, "the gold of that land is good" (2:12), not only the dignity of life shared by all living creatures, but also the concrete blessing that guaranteed the human dignity of those created in the image and the likeness of God was placed in it. This was implied by the words, "bdellium and onyx stone are there" (ibid.). 

Bdellium was reportedly a precious commodity on a par with gold. It symbolises power. Furthermore, onyx—which appears in the Book of Exodus as one of the gemstones adorning the breastplate and ephod worn by the priest Aaron, and is depicted in the Book of Revelation as one of the jewels which adorned the foundations of the wall of Jerusalem—can be considered a symbol of authority. 

These blessings, placed within human reproductive function, are intended to enable every believer to cultivate the strength (power) of their faith—so that they may live their daily lives in collaboration with the Holy Spirit—and to ensure that those who collaborate with the Holy Spirit may live with radiance (authority). 

This was meant to manifest as a blessing bestowed upon all people from birth. However, at some point, it began to manifest as a desire to dominate and control one's neighbour, to satisfy higher-order needs—such as the need for belonging, the need for recognition, and the need for self-actualisation—and some even began to act upon this desire… 

Living creatures indeed reflect the eternity of the Almighty God by ensuring the survival of their species. Therefore, we can see that the reproductive function, which enables the transmission of genes, in conjunction with the function of maintaining one’s own physical body, carries equal or even greater significance. 

However, it was not merely this; it was precisely within this function—in which the secretion of hormones plays a profound role—that the grace enabling a person to prepare themselves for God was bestowed. Power and authority were not graces intended to dominate and control one's neighbour, but rather to govern and control oneself in a manner befitting a neighbour of the Holy Spirit. 

I intend to take a greater interest in human reproductive functions and behaviour and try to learn more about them. I expect this will shed some light on the secret behind the "perpetrators and victims" who appear every day all over the world. 

Maria K. M.

 

 

In Genesis, God revealed His will through the words: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26). 

It goes on to say, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (1:27). When we look at God's subsequent command: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth" (1:28), we notice a point that differs from the God's will mentioned above. 

Although God created humankind and said, "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth," the command given was, "Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." The phrase "Fill the earth and subdue it" has been newly added, whilst "the cattle" has been omitted. 

There are other creatures that have been excluded as well. These include the great sea monsters that God created on the fifth day, and the beasts of the earth created on the sixth day, before He resolved to create humankind. However, it is not realistic for humankind to subdue these creatures even today. Whilst it may be thought that "the cattle" were excluded because they were created from the outset to obey humans, there must surely have been a reason why Genesis recorded in this way. 

The reason God commanded humans to "fill the earth and subdue it" lay in the cattle. The subsequent words of Genesis read: "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.' And it was so" (1:29–30). Indeed, the word "the cattle" does not appear here. 

Who is to provide food for "the cattle"…? I had never realised, nor had it ever occurred to me, that such a meaning lay hidden behind the fact that man was made to till and guard the soil of the Garden of Eden, and that from the very beginning of creation, man and cattle were intended to relate to one another in this way. Yet, from this passage, I feel I can glimpse the world in which God looked upon all that He had made and saw that it was "very good." 

God can provide for the needs of all life, both human and animal. And as it says, "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken" (3:23), the man has continued to till the land even after being driven out of the Garden. People have lived alongside the cattle. 

In the Gospels, the exchange between Jesus and a woman who pleaded "to cast the demon out of her daughter" is recorded as follows: "And he said to her, 'Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.' And he said to her, 'For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.'" (Mark 7:27–29). 

This story follows on from the previous scene. There, Jesus had been debating with the Pharisees and the scribes, who were fixated on the traditions of the ancients, and had explained the meaning of the debate to the crowd through parables. However, realising that even His disciples, who had been listening, did not understand, Jesus explained: "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts" (7:20–21). 

When Jesus said to the woman, "For this saying," He must have seen a contrast with the scene in which He had said, "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts." I believe that the woman's reply, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs," reflected the world which He had declared to be "very good," seeing everything that he had made. 

Maria K. M.

It occurred to me that "it might be good to take a moment to reflect on the flow of Genesis," so I began by opening the New Testament. Immediately, the words, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love" (John 15:9) caught my attention. "I really must look at Genesis after all," I thought.

The Father loved the Son, who became the Word, and loves us with that same love. The "love" that the Son, Jesus, speaks of when He says, "Abide in my love, " refers to the Holy Spirit sent in Jesus' name. And the origin of Jesus speaking in this way must be found in Genesis.

With this in mind, I began reading Genesis, and what immediately caught my eye was the difference in the terms used to describe God in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. From the beginning of chapter 1 through verse 3 of chapter 2, the term used is "God," but from verse 4 of chapter 2 through the end, the term "the Lord God" is used.

In Chapter 1, the opening passage states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light" (Genesis 1:1–3). From this passage, we can imagine "God," working within the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Next, the point at which the term shifts from "God" to "the Lord God" is found in Chapter 2: "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground" (Genesis 2:4–5). The "man to till the ground" was the way of being God had established for humanity from the beginning, so that the command God gave to humanity—"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28)—might be fulfilled.

God first desired that man become one who would serve the earth, which he was to subdue. To this end, God breathed into man the "breath of life, " so that man might possess a spirit. This was so that man, created in God’s likeness, might be connected to the Holy Spirit and placed within a relationship with God. The phrase "the Lord God" used here is thought to express the relationship between the Father and the Son.

This state of relationship between God and humanity closely resembles the state in which we, together with the Holy Spirit, participate in the Mass before the Blessed Sacrament. Undoubtedly, Jesus has restored this state to us believers in the Mass.

Maria K. M.

 

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 another aspect, 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.

 

I have only recently learned that it was St Francis of Assisi who first decorated the stable of the Nativity scene at Christmas. It is said that Francis reenacted the birth of Jesus Christ in a poor stable in the village of Greccio, Italy, on Christmas Eve 1223. 

For Francis, Christ as the infant Son of God, born in this way, along with Christ crucified, dead and risen, and Christ with us in the Eucharist, became an important theme which makes us realise the true meaning of poverty, the poverty of God becoming man. It is God showing people life itself. Francis found the Creator's love in every part of nature, because everywhere, there is life that God desired, revealing God's love. All life gives glory to God by simply being alive. 

We know this because the Son of God was born as a man on earth and spoke his word. When Francis encountered the San Damiano Crucifix, he could not resist the realisation he then received. He could not pass by and pretend not to see the truth he had come to know. The truth he received began in a poor stable. Francis realised the significance of the time and place that the three had finally become the Holy Family with the birth of Jesus. 

In the world depicted on the San Damiano Crucifix, the past, the present, and the future are visible. There is something hidden in it, suggesting that time is not only something that flows, but also represents a relationship. I believe that Francis received it and simply tried to live what he had realised and to pass on that realisation to the people amidst the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church at that time, when papal authority was at its peak, and its political influence was growing. 

Francis lived at a time when mendicant orders were on the rise in response to changes within the Church and in society. However, Francis, who had been enlightened by the San Damiano Crucifix, could not easily ride that wave. That is most likely because he could see a relationship in time. Everything began in a poor stable. 

The time and place the three became the Holy Family with the birth of Jesus lead us to the scene of the people standing by the cross in John's Gospel (cf. John 19:25-27) through allusions and suggestions found in the Gospels and are reflected in the San Damiano Crucifix. There, the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple are depicted on one side, with Mary Magdalene and the wife of Clopas on the other side, with Jesus on the cross between them. There is no mention in the Gospels of "with Jesus on the cross between them", but the San Damiano Crucifix has an advantage as a visual depiction. It is an important representation that enables us to recall the image of Jesus and the Apostles sitting around the last table. 

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus, on the cross, bound his mother and the disciple he loved with a parent-child bond (cf. 19:26-27). On the previous evening, Jesus instituted the Eucharist in the presence of the Apostles and, together with his work, gave them the priesthood of the New Covenant by saying, "Do this in remembrance of me." We can consider the mother of Jesus to be a public sign of this event. The Church communicated amidst persecution that this sacrament had indeed been conferred by Jesus on the Apostles in such a way that only believers could understand it. The Gospels became a guarantee of this. 

The priests of the New Covenant, although male, will be overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit, like the mother of Jesus, so that the Eucharist may be born. They become those who ask the Father for the birth of the Eucharist in Jesus' name. They are given it and filled with joy (cf. John 16:20-24). The mission of the priesthood is a mission that concerns the life of the Eucharist in the same way that a woman carrying an unborn child concerns the life of a person. God, who called Himself "I am", willed to be born, through the Holy Spirit, of a man who was conferred with the priesthood of the New Covenant so that He could serve human life as Eucharist, for the sake of human life, which He desired to be and which comes forth from a woman. God is in the extremity of poverty. 

The Apostle, who took the mother of Jesus to his own home and testified to his consent to the parent-child bond, became the legitimate heir inheriting the authority of the mother of Jesus, who had accepted the mystery of the Incarnation. The authority of the mother of Jesus lies in the fact that the angel's words "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35) were fulfilled. The angel's words are indeed fulfilled also in the priest before the altar. Therefore, the "child to be born," i.e., the Eucharist, is "called holy, the Son of God." 

Jesus himself was in his final scene on the cross. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the wife of Clopas, witnessed the whole process. The name of the Apostle, who was called a disciple whom Jesus loved, was hidden. On the other hand, the Gospel of John does not tell the name of Jesus’ mother, but it is undoubtedly Mary. So, the Apostle, who entered into a parent-child bond with Jesus' mother, became "the son of Mary." Thus, the "my church" (Matthew 16:18), of which Jesus mentioned, was to be born as the three Marys. 

St Francis of Assisi drew inspiration from the San Damiano Crucifix, which had captured his vision. He carried it through to his subsequent actions. How did he perceive the vocation of the Church born beside the cross of Jesus? Hopefully, we will track his actions little by little in the future. 

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

Maria K.M.

 

A friend of mine recently suggested that if we, referring to the words of Jesus, could explain how Christianity became a world religion, starting from Rome, and if we could slowly interpret the grand themes such as Jesus on the cross in the Gospel of John, his relationship with Pilate and the Centurion, and the Roman reign, we might be able to understand what we want to understand, i.e., where God's will is and to where we are being led. I have been thinking about this for some time. 

The New Testament has a history that people today may not immediately understand, including the involvement of Pilate and the centurions, as well as the Roman rule. We have the opportunity to study the process of Christianity's rise from Rome to a world religion in Western history, but the view we see from there is far from the sensibilities of Japanese people living in the farthest east. Considering all this, I thought it would not be easy to explain that process. At the same time, I think that Japanese people may have some geographical advantage. Perhaps it is a certain feeling that comes from being outside of Christian history.

 It is the Holy Spirit who enlightens us, interpreting Jesus’ words. The Holy Spirit is with all people, each and every one of us, so it may be helpful for us to be more aware of our own geographical location and to be conscious of it in working with the Holy Spirit. Just as I was thinking this way, I came across the following reflection. At first, it seemed like a trivial matter, and I was about to pass by. But when I stopped and looked at it again, I realised that it is a matter that supports the daily lives of the Japanese people, and that it is a surprisingly good hint. 

In Japan, the Japanese calendar (based on Gengo or imperial era names) and the Western calendar coexist. I have often found this dual calendar system inconvenient, but I have never paid attention to this situation. However, I was intrigued by the idea that Japanese people routinely accept a dualised sense of time. It was a strange feeling when I drew attention again to the fact that we live between two time scales: Japanese time (imperial eras) and world time (Western calendar). 

Japanese people were not under this condition until after the Meiji Restoration. It is said that January 1, Meiji 6 (1873 AD) is the date of the introduction of the Gregorian calendar to Japan. One hundred and forty-five years later, the Nikkei Newspaper of 20 August 2018 reported that "The government has decided not to require the Western calendar to be written on official documents upon the switchover to the new imperial era on 1 May 2019. It will not indicate a policy of writing both Japanese and Western calendars or unifying them with the Western calendar, and it will leave this to the individual decisions of ministries, agencies, and local authorities." When I heard this, I thought it was quite remarkable. It is said that very few citizens are still living in such a condition in the 21st century. I thought that the character of the Japanese people might be manifested in such a way. 

Gengo is a delimiter of an era. With names such as “Reiwa” and “Heisei”, it renews the value of each era and marks a fresh start. The Western calendar, on the other hand, is a solar calendar introduced in 46 BC as the Julian calendar, which Pope Gregory XIII revised in 1582 to correct deviations from the seasons and make it more accurate. It gives us a strong sense of linear time, like BC → AD → 2025. Thus, Japanese people, who have accepted the dual calendar, Gengo and the Western calendar, in their daily lives, may have had from the beginning a sense of what could be called an intermediate worldview. They have a sense that time is not only something that flows, but also something that ‘expresses a relationship’, and they accept and use the dual calendar. 

When we look at the history of Catholic teaching, which was nurtured in an environment where only the Western calendar is the norm, it looks like a linear, torrent-like run through the historical time in which Christianity, with its capital in Rome, became a world religion, with grand themes ranging from the Old Testament to the New Testament. In addition, there is a highly dense growth process in it. So, if the Japanese try to carry that history on their backs as it is, they would already be exhausted. I think that is why we have the feeling that if it is preached slowly, we might be able to understand what we want to understand, where God's will is, where He is leading us. That is what I feel. 

The Holy Spirit works on the individual, as Jesus said, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13). Jesus repeats the part "declare to you" twice more in a further passage (cf. 16:14-15), for a total of three times. That must be because it is so important. 

The Holy Spirit "will guide you into all the truth." It happens as each of us is personally involved with the Holy Spirit. Engagement with the Holy Spirit is initially individual anyway, even if it can become shared and communal. Unlike the times of the Old Testament when God spoke to His people through prophets, God wants each believer who seeks and desires to know His plan, as seen in the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters, to receive it by turning to and engaging with the Holy Spirit. God wants to preach slowly to each person and let them know where His will is and where He is leading them. 

Eight hundred years after the believers had received the New Testament, which was not available at the time of Paul's ministry, St Francis of Assisi encountered the "San Damiano Crucifix." It depicts the people who stood by the cross in John's Gospel, and below them is the Roman soldier who speared Jesus in the side, and another who offered him a sponge containing sour wine. Furthermore, next to Jesus' left calf is a small rooster, as if to remind us of Peter. They, too, like the centurion, are all looking earnestly at Jesus on the cross. Hidden in this cross seems to be a prophecy that time is not only something that flows but also "something that represents a relationship." I think we can discover that now, 800 years after St Francis. 

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

Maria K. M.