What is the gospel of Judas?

This is taken from a Zenit article dated April 5, 2006. ZENIT asked Father Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance of the discovery.



Q: What is the "Gospel of Judas"?

Father Williams: Though the manuscript still must be authenticated, it likely represents a fourth- or fifth-century text, and is a copy of an earlier document produced by a Gnostic sect called the Cainites.

The document paints Judas Iscariot in a positive light, and describes him as obeying a divine ordinance in handing over Jesus to the authorities for the salvation of the world.

It may well be a copy of the "Gospel of Judas" referred to by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his work "Against the Heresies," written around A.D. 180.

Q: If authentic, what challenge would this document pose to traditional Christian belief? Will it "shake Christianity to its foundations" as some press releases have suggested?

Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity.

From the moment of their appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their incompatibility with the Christian faith.

The "Gospel of Judas" would be a document of this sort, which could have great historical value, since it contributes to our knowledge of the Gnostic movement, but it poses no direct challenge to Christianity.

Q: Is it true that the Church has tried to cover up this text and other apocryphal texts?

These are myths circulated by Dan Brown and other conspiracy theorists.

You can go to any Catholic bookstore and pick up a copy of the Gnostic gospels. Christians may not believe them to be true, but there is no attempt to hide them.

Q: But doesn't an early document of this sort rival orthodox Christian sources, such as the four canonical Gospels?

Remember that Gnosticism arose in the middle of the second century, and the "Gospel of Judas," if authentic, probably dates back to the mid- to late second century.

To put a historical perspective on things, that would be like you or me writing a text now on the American Civil War and having that text later used as a primary historical source on the war. The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the way at least two of the canonical Gospels were.

Q: Why would the leaders of the Gnostic movement have been interested in Judas?

One of the major differences between Gnostic belief and that of Christianity concerns the origins of evil in the universe.

Christians believe that a good God created a good world, and that through the abuse of free will, sin and corruption entered the world and produced disorder and suffering.

The Gnostics blamed God for the evil in the world and claimed that he created the world in a disordered and flawed way. Thus they champion the rehabilitation of Old Testament figures such as Cain, who killed his brother Abel, and Esau, the elder brother of Jacob, who sold his birthright for a plate of pottage.

Judas fits perfectly into the Gnostic agenda of showing that God intends evil for the world.

Q: But wasn't Judas' betrayal a necessary part of God's plan, as this text suggests?

Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world.

In his last published book, Pope John Paul II eloquently reflected on how God continues to bring good out of even the worst evil that man can produce.

That doesn't mean, however, that God intends for us to do evil, or that he intended for Judas to betray Jesus. If it wasn't Judas, it would have been someone else. The authorities had already decided to put Jesus to death, and it was just a matter of time.

Q: What is the Church's position regarding Judas? Is it possible to "rehabilitate" him?

Though the Catholic Church has a canonization process by which it declares certain persons to be in heaven, as saints, it has no such process for declaring people to be condemned.

Historically, many have thought that Judas is probably in hell, because of Jesus' severe indictment of Judas: "It would be better for that man if he had never been born," as he says in Matthew 26:24. But even these words do not offer conclusive evidence regarding his fate.

In his 1994 book, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," Pope John Paul II wrote that Jesus' words "do not allude for certain to eternal damnation."

Q: But if anyone deserves hell, wouldn't it be Judas?

Surely many people deserve hell, but we must remember that the mercy of God is infinitely greater than our wickedness.

Peter and Judas committed very similar faults: Peter denied Jesus three times, and Judas handed him over. And yet now Peter is remembered as a saint and Judas simply as the traitor.

The main difference between the two is not the nature or gravity of their sin, but rather their willingness to accept God's mercy. Peter wept for his sins, came back to Jesus, and was pardoned. The Gospel describes Judas as hanging himself in despair.

Q: Why is the "Gospel of Judas" arousing so much interest?

Such theories regarding Judas are certainly not new.

It's enough to remember the 1973 play "Jesus Christ Superstar," where Judas sings, "I have no thought at all about my own reward. I really didn't come here of my own accord," or Taylor Caldwell's 1977 novel "I, Judas."

The enormous economic success of "The Da Vinci Code" has undoubtedly stirred up the pot, and provided financial incentive for theories of this sort.

Michael Baigent, author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," now has a book out called "The Jesus Papers," which recycles the old story that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

And a newly released "scientific" study asserts that meteorological conditions could have been such that Jesus really walked on ice, when the Gospels say he walked on water.

Basically, for those who reject outright the possibility of miracles, any theory, outlandish as it may be, trumps Christian claims.

What happened to Jesus between the time he died and resurrected? Where did he go?

The question is a good one. We have almost reduced Holy Week to two days: Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Holy Saturday is treated like a “break” from all the church liturgy, at least until the Easter Vigil.

In answering the question, let’s be careful that we do not treat the death and Resurrection of Jesus in terms of human time and space. The Resurrection did not occur during a particular time, say, for example, on the midnight of Sunday. I t is also difficult to talk about where exactly Jesus went when he died.

We know that Jesus died and Resurrected. What happened in between is referred to, in our Creed, as Jesus having “descended to the dead.” (Also referred to as “descended to hell” because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. CCC, 633).

“Descended to the dead” means:

- Jesus, like all human beings, experienced death. He did not just pretend to die.

- Jesus’ act of salvation applies to all, even to those who died before him. Salvation is “not limited by time and space.”[1]

We are inspired that Jesus resurrected. Equally, and perhaps even more inspiring, is that Jesus actually died. At a moment in human history, there is an event when God died. Isn’t that more astonishing?

But Jesus, the God-human, died for a purpose: to be one with ALL humankind by “joining the others in the realm of the dead.”[2] In doing so, Jesus includes all humankind of all time and of all places in proclaiming the good news: I have come to bring you ALL back to the Father.

This is the wonderful significance of Holy Saturday. God’s love indeed knows no bounds.

---

[1] CFC, 592 and CCC, 634-635

[2] CCC, 632

CFC is Catechism for Filipino Catholics and CCC is Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why did Jesus have to die?

Let’s first answer that question with a question: what is the most important aspect of Christianity?

If you were asked what is the core essential and most important of aspect of Christianity, the ‘thing’ that really differentiates our faith from all other faiths, the one element that is beyond any human teaching and endeavor, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?

St. Paul answered this question in 1 Corinthians 15:3: “For I handed on to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” (emphasis mine)

The answer is: the Cross. The cross is of “first importance.”

But how can this be? Crucifixion is the Roman method of execution, somewhat equivalent to the contemporary electric chair, gas chamber or lethal injection. I say “somewhat” because it was far worse. The objective of crucifixion was not to kill, but to shame and torture. Victims were hanged on the cross naked, and sometimes for days. Out of pity, they were scourged before crucifixion to quicken their death, or their legs broken while crucified so they can die of asphyxiation.

For the early Christians to say that they are the disciples of Jesus is equivalent today of being disciples of a criminal who was put to death in the electric chair.


What then did the crucifixion accomplish?

Let’s start with some misperceptions. Some have gravely misunderstood the crucifixion as “picturing the Father punishing him cruelly for our sins, even though he is completely innocent. This is a monstrous view of God the Father, and badly misinterprets the New Testament. The Father hates sin, not Jesus.” (CFC, 569)

God did not become human to simply die. We miss the point when we think of Jesus’ sacrifice only in terms of his death on the cross. Instead we should look at his entire life and his purpose or mission, which is to preach the Kingdom of God, and this he accomplished to the extent it RESULTED to his death on the cross.

But he said to them, “To the other towns also I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this purpose I have been sent.” – Luke 4:43

The core of Jesus’ teaching is the Kingdom of God, mentioned more than a hundred times in the Gospel. The Kingdom of God is not a place, but a condition where unconditional love prevails. God’s love is unconditional, which means that it is open to everyone, regardless of how sinful you are.

Preaching this contradicted and embarrassed many of the Pharisees, Sadducees and other authorities during Jesus’ time. Eventually, people plotted against him, which resulted to his crucifixion and death.

What was accomplished in the cross, therefore, is the full manifestation of God’s love. There Jesus hanged because he could not stop short of showing humanity what God’s love (read: God’s Kingdom) is all about.

It is not the very suffering and death of Christ that save us, for this would make his torturers and executioners our saviors. Rather, we are saved by Jesus’ perfect self-giving love for his Father and for us, a love lived out to the death. (CFC, 558)

Can you imagine if Jesus veered away from his life purpose because he was afraid that he was going to be killed? Instead, “he saw his suffering and death as part of the coming of the Kingdom, the “test” he taught his followers to pray about: lead us not to the test. (CFC, 562)


What did Jesus say and do, then, which meant life for us and death for him?

Jesus announced that the Kingdom of God was destined not pri­marily to the pious and the faithful observers of the Law, but to the poor, the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, the sick and the un­educated "people of the land." All this was most shocking to his contemporaries.

But Jesus provoked the anger of the Jewish leaders in many other ways. He consorted and took his meals with the "enemies of the people," the abhorred tax collectors, as well as with prostitutes and public sinners. He drastically reinterpreted the Law on such matters as legal purity, the sabbath, divorce, etc. He rejected the accepted norms of retaliation against non-Jews and publicly favored the "popular enemy," the Samaritan. He assured some individuals that their sins had been for­given. He denounced the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. He attacked the chief priests. And in many other ways, Jesus threatened the existing “law and order” so that a truly fraternal and just society might emerge one day – at whatever cost to himself.

Jesus did not say: I want to die, and therefore I will provoke everyone into killing me. Instead, he said: By my Father’s command, I will proclaim and show what God’s love is all about, and I will do so even if it costs my life.


I was taught that Jesus made the supreme sacrifice on the cross. How then are we to interpret this sacrificial act?

Jesus’ sacrificial act on the cross is consistent with the biblical meaning of sacrifice. When a Jew offered an animal as sacrifice, the animal was the symbol of his or her life. By offering the animal, the Jew was also offering his or her life to God. But for the Jew, the focus is not the killing of the animal, but what it symbolizes: his or her life would now be based on obeying God’s will. The Jew was in effect saying, “I am offering this animal to tell my God that I would like to live a life that is God-centered.”

It is the same with the sacrifice of Jesus. It is not just the crucifixion but the entire life of Jesus that we should consider. And his whole life was to fulfill the purpose that the Father has sent him: to preach the Kingdom. Even unto death.


How does Jesus’ death forgive my sins?

To be forgiven is to be reconciled with God. Jesus has shown in his life, and death, that we are forgiven and loved unconditionally.

When we really understand the meaning of Jesus’ life and death on the cross, then a profound healing can begin to take place within us. Our “being saved” or “being forgiven” happens.

“When we begin to accept that God loves and accepts us unconditionally, then we can change our sense of who we are and our sense of what life is about. Our primary image of our self would then become one of ‘trusted, loved and already forgiven by God,’ rather than ‘sinner who must please God to be forgiven.’ We can begin to discover that the Christian life is about a life lived in a loving relationship with God. Realizing this, we may be able to allow the transforming power of our love relationship with God to work in our lives.”[1]


But couldn’t a martyr have done what Jesus did; that is, teach about God’s love and be able to die for it?

That’s exactly the point! Out of love, God sent His only Son to do it (not anyone else), so that God’s love is not only preached, but lived, by God himself!

Because it was God himself who did it, then that saving love is unique. How? In the following ways:

- It is universal – it is for all of humanity

- Secondly, it is empowering – we cooperate with Jesus in Kingdom building.


What’s the implication of all these in my life?

When you look at Jesus on the cross, do not remember only his death. Remember his entire life, what he said and did, his unconditional love manifested in forgiveness and healing of both the physical, mental and emotional illnesses of those around him. Recall that Jesus was willing to do all these even if he knew that he would antagonize people and that he may eventually pay for it with his life. But he did so anyway out of love for all of us.

Realizing this, you too can discover your life purpose and fulfill it to completion, just as Jesus did.
Secondly, in his life as in his death, Jesus had only one goal. Like the good shepherd who is ready to risk his life for his sheep, he thus laid his life for his sheep “so that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) You too can contribute to making others live more fully: physically, financially, emotionally, spiritually.



[1] Lode Wostyn, CICM, I Believe: A Workbook for Theology I (Manila: Claretian Publications, 2004), 174.

Why do we fast and abstain? (Asked by Tintin SJ, SE-1 and Kimie V., SE-10)

What is fasting?

Fasting is required only on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and involves eating only one full meal on those days. One or two smaller meals may be taken on those days, but the two may not total one full meal. The required fast also does not allow eating anything between meals.

Why do we fast?

First and foremost, the purpose of fasting is conversion, i.e. to change. Our Church categorizes fasting together with prayer and almsgiving, and consider these three as the highest forms of expressing the conversion in our relationship with God and others. The whole Sermon in the Mount (Matthew 6:1-18) also refers to this triad of fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

Thus, fasting is NOT atonement (or making up) for our sins, but as our way of working on those things in our selves that need changing. When we deprive ourselves of certain basic necessities, such as food, then we are training ourselves to have better control of certain undesirable traits that may have already become a natural part of our selves.

If we can fast from eating in one day, then we can certainly be able to, for examples, control our temper a little longer, be extra kind to someone who may irritate us, be a little less harsh to people who don’t meet our expectations, spend a little more time with someone who needs ministering, put more volunteer time in a worthwhile project, be more easily forgiving of another person’s faults, and so on.

This daily and everyday changes in our life is the normal path pointed out by Jesus: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mt 16:24).

This brings us back to the biblical meaning of “sacrifice.” When the Jews offered a lamb or pigeon as a sacrifice, it was NOT to feed a hungry God. The animal offered symbolized the life of the offeror, and his/her way of saying “I, too, am offering my life, and I will do this by making my life more God-centered.”

Those offering a sacrifice are to allow God’s grace to transform their lives. If the sacrifice does not result in changed lives, then those who offered it have put an obstacle in God’s way, and so the sacrifice has been incomplete!

This is why Hosea said in 6:6: For it is love that I desire, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than holocausts. If we fast simply for fasting’s sake, and we are not renewed in love and forgiveness, then God does not desire our fasting.

Why is fasting grouped together with almsgiving?

The relationship between fasting and almsgiving is a prominent theme in early Christian writings. In a 2nd century text, we read: “In the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want.”

The preaching of the church fathers is clear that whatever saving is realized through one’s fasting belongs to the poor. Thus Gregory the Great preached, “The one who does not give to the poor what he has saved but keeps it for later to satisfy his own appetite, does not fast for God.”

Thus, early on in our Church history, we were encouraged to always accompany our personal sacrifices with acts of service to others. Fasting was meant to also heighten our awareness of our obligation to help others.

What about abstinence?

To abstain is to not eat meat, and is required on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent. (Eggs and dairy products are ok).

It is an act of sacrifice, that helps us grow in freedom to make much bigger sacrifices. Of course, it would not make sense to make the sacrifice of not eating meat, and then eat a wonderful meal of Chilean sea bass and lobster, which you might enjoy even more. Many people eat a vegetarian diet, for a variety of reasons, and eating meat is not even an issue. It should be noted that many people in this world cannot afford to eat meat or do not have access to it. Part of our abstaining from meat can place us in solidarity with so many of our sisters and brothers around the world.

If you don’t already eat meat, or abstaining from meat isn’t a big deal, then it is suggested that you abstain from some food that you really like.

Why Fridays?

Friday has always remained a special day for Christians since it is the day that Jesus died. Friday should be in each week what Lent is in the entire year. Friday is that day when we become a little bit more conscious of our shortcomings so that we can adequately prepare for the Eucharistic celebration on Sunday.

Can I substitute other forms of sacrifices instead of fasting and abstinence?

It is preferred that you conform with our Church’s requirements on fasting and abstinence so that we can be in solidarity with our entire Catholic community during those days.

However, I did come across this practice which may be helpful as an additional practice in helping us in our conversion process.

- Mondays – Do a devotion, like the rosary or visit to the Blessed Sacrament.
- Tuesdays – Make it your “Textless Tuesday” Detach yourself from your life support (cellphone).
- Wednesdays – Go out of your comfort zone in helping others.
- Thursdays – Fast from gossip
- Fridays – Fast from making mental judgments of people
- Saturdays – Your day off.
- Sunday – Feast on Scripture (read the bible chapters at a time).



Sources:

- Father Thomas Ryan, CSP, coordinates ecumenical and interreligious relations for the Paulists and is the author of The Sacred Art of Fasting: Beginning to Practice (SkyLight Paths, 2005). See for the full article: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18854

- See also: http://www.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/Lent/fast-abstinence.html

Why do we make the sign of the cross? (Asked by Jippo C. - SE-10)

I found a very good answer to this question from a Zenit article. Zenit provides a series of weekly articles that originate directly from the Vatican. You can subscribe to their weekly email updates. Log on to http://www.zenit.org/.

I have edited the answer below, for the sake of brevity. If you want to read the full article please click here.


The simple gesture that Catholics make thousands of times in their lives has a deeper meaning most of them don't realize.

Q: When did the sign of the cross originate?

Bert Ghezzi*: The sign of the cross is a very ancient practice and prayer. We don't have any indication of it in Scripture, but St. Basil in the fourth century said that we learned the sign from the time of the apostles and that it was administered in baptisms. Some scholars interpret St. Paul's saying that he bears the marks of Christ on his body, in Galatians 6:17, as his referring to the sign of the cross. In the book, I note that the sign originates close to Jesus' time and goes back to the ancient Church. Christians received it in baptism; the celebrant signed them and claimed them for Christ.

Q: How did it become such an important liturgical and devotional practice?

Ghezzi: I speculate that when adult Christians were baptized, they made the sign of the cross that claimed them for Christ on their forehead proudly. Tertullian said that Christians at all times should mark their foreheads with the sign of the cross. I can imagine that Christians would make a little sign of the cross with their thumb and forefinger on their foreheads, to remind themselves that they were living a life for Christ.

Q: Beyond the words themselves, what does the sign mean? Why is it a mark of discipleship?

Ghezzi: The sign means a lot of things. In the book, I describe six meanings, with and without words. The sign of the cross is: a confession of faith; a renewal of baptism; a mark of discipleship; an acceptance of suffering; a defense against the devil; and a victory over self-indulgence. When you make the sign, you are professing a mini version of the creed — you are professing your belief in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

When you say the words and pray in someone's name you are declaring their presence and coming into their presence — that's how a name is used in Scripture.

The sign of the cross is a mark of discipleship. Jesus says in Luke 9:23, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." The word that the Fathers of the Church used for the sign of the cross is a Greek word that is the same as what a slave owner put on a slave, a shepherd put on a sheep and a general put on a soldier — it's a declaration that I belong to Christ.

Q: Do non-Catholics use the sign of the cross?

Ghezzi: Yes, the sign of the cross is used by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, particularly in baptisms. In his small catechism, Martin Luther recommends making the sign of the cross at bedtime and first thing in the morning. It's a shame that many non-Catholics see it as something they shouldn't be doing; it comes from an ancient Church that we all share. One of my hopes in writing this book is that non-Catholics will read it and share in the sign of the cross.

Q: Why do Catholics use the sign of the cross with holy water upon entering and exiting a church?

Ghezzi: In order to participate in the great sacrifice of the Mass, you need to be baptized. Using holy water to sign yourself is saying "I am a baptized Christian and I am authorized to participate in this sacrifice." When you make the sign of the cross when you leave, you say that the Mass never ends — your whole life is participating in Christ's sacrifice.

When I see professional athletes make the sign of the cross during games, I'm not critical of them. It says that everything I do, I do in the name of Christ — even games can be played in the presence of God. When people make the sign of the cross casually, I pray that they will recognize how serious it is — that they are declaring that they belong to Christ, they want to obey him and accept suffering. It's not a good-luck charm.

* Bert Ghezzi, author of "Sign of the Cross: Recovering the Power of the Ancient Prayer" (Loyola Press).

Was the story of Adam and Eve a myth? Follow up question: What is the Catholic Church's stand on the theory of evolution? (Asked by Sujee I., SE-4)

Regarding your first question on whether the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, I’d like to direct you to my answer to an earlier question on AskTM, namely: How should we interpret the message of Creation, Adam and Eve, and the forbidden fruit in Genesis? (Asked by Charlie R., SE-1). Click here to read the answer.

Regarding your follow up question, I am presenting below the answer presented in http://www.catholic.com/, with some editing and additional comments done by me. The website article has a “Nihil Obstat” (meaning “free from error”) and “Imprimatur” (meaning, “approved for publication). If you want to read the complete answer, you can click here.

(Start of quote)

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

(My comment: The Catechism for the Catholic Church defines “soul” not as a ghost trapped in a human body but as the “spiritual principle in a person.” CCC, 363-364).

(End of quote)

Having cited that, I would like to also encourage you to think of the significant teachings of the Creation story that we can apply in our lives today, namely:

- Your question reflects a longing within all of us to understand the origin of things and life and, more importantly, its purpose and destination. The bible tells us that God is the source of all creation, and that God is also our purpose and destination. It tells us that God is not a watchmaker who created a watch and simply let the world tick endlessly, while God watches from the heavens and observe. No, God continues the work of creation: things and life are getting better everyday. The Christian perspective is always that we COOPERATE with God to make things better. “May your kingdom come.”

- Secondly, we are reminded that God is in control. The God who created does not leave the world and people alone. God continues the work of creation through the everyday encounter we face where we can contribute to this work: helping a person in need, forgiving the person who hurt you, taking the initiative to mend a broken relationship, going out of your comfort zone to reach out and touch someone, making our daily business decisions consistent with Gospel values.

How should we interpret the message of Creation, Adam and Eve, and the forbidden fruit in Genesis? (Asked by Charlie R., SE-1)

Let us bear in mind that the bible is not meant to be a scientific explanation of the beginnings of time. It is meant to give us the “inspired” explanation and reflections of the biblical authors regarding God’s purpose and humanity’s response. A scientific explanation is meant to explain HOW the universe came to be. A biblical explanation is meant to explain WHY it came to be.

The stories of Creation and the Fall are myths, but I should caution you against thinking that simply because these are myths, then therefore these are false. A myth is a literary form, usually using figurative language, which is used in explaining the origins of natural phenomena and aspects of human behavior. The story presented in a myth may not have truly happened but contains profound truths nevertheless. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also tells us that the account of the Fall uses figurative language (CCC, 390).

Analysing the creation story as a “myth” actually provides us profound insights on God’s purposes and humanity’s response. On the other hand, if you simply take the creation story literally, then you would probably deduce that God is a mighty and fast worker who created everything in six days, got tired and rested on the seventh day.

Here are some of the meanings we can learn from these two stories:

1. God is the source of everything. The first verse in the bible is “in the beginning, the earth was a formless wasteland, and the darkness covered the abyss.” Then God created the heavens and the earth. Before that, there was nothing. The phrase “and God said” indicates the power of God: simply by God’s word, things came to be. (In Tagalog, isang salita lang, naganap na.)

2. God’s creation is perfect; nothing more and nothing less are required. The number “7” is a symbol (as all numbers in the bible are symbolic) which means “perfect” or “complete.” There is a sequence to creation (from Day 1 to Day 6), which means there is a purpose in creation. Its purpose is to share God’s love and goodness – “God saw it was good.” The purpose of creation is also shown on the seventh day which is blessed and made holy; meaning, that the purpose is for humanity to be with God.

3. Humanity is the most important of all creation. God reserved the best for last, and only man/woman were created “in the image of God.” God’s original intent is for harmony between God, humanity, and creation. It was paradise. But Adam and Eve broke this harmony with their response to God’s purposes.

4. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is a merism, which is a literary device by which totality is expressed by the first and last of a series or by opposites. For example: “you know when I sit and when I stand” means all my physical movement. Or “I love you day and night” means we love the person all the time.

“To know” means not just intellectual, but experiential and relational so to “eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” actually refers to a mastery of life which is independent of God. The original sin is more than just disobedience. Sometime in the beginnings of human history, humanity took a position that did not recognize the superiority of God and therefore rejected God’s love.

This rejection of God’s love has resulted to a state of “original sin.” Try to look at original sin not just as “an act,” but as a state or condition which now characterizes humanity. We now have this tendency to be selfish (to think myself first). Thus, we harm human relationships and promote certain sinful and unjust structures in society which oppress others.

There is one other aspect in the story of the Fall which is often neglected. In Genesis 3:21, it says: “For the man and his wife, the LORD God made leather garments, with which he clothed them.” This was after they took of the fruit and before they were banished from the garden. This is a symbol that God always gives sinful persons a second chance.

And indeed, we see this message clearly in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God, who came for us sinners.

For further questions, please email me at mannyblas@gmail.com.