Baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:1-3:23)
In the gospels, the ministry of Jesus begins with his baptism in the countryside of Roman Judea and Transjordan, near the river Jordan, and ends in Jerusalem, following the Last Supper with his disciples.This event is recorded in the Canonical Gospels according Matthew, Mark and Luke.
John the Baptist preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins and in so doing he was preparing the way for the Lord. Jesus came to the Jordan River where he was baptized by John at a site traditionally known as Qasr al-Yahud (the Jews' Castle). This event concluded with the heavens opening, a dove-like descent of the Holy Spirit, and a voice from Heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased." The voice combines key phrases from the Old Testament: "My Son" (the Davidic king as God's adopted son in Psalms 2 and Psalms 10), "beloved" (Isaac in Genesis 22), and "with whom I am well pleased" (the servant of God in Isaiah 42:1).
In all three of the synoptic gospels, John the Baptist is described as completing a prophecy made by Isaiah; as the individual who would make straight the paths of him. The quote, coming from Isaiah 40:3, refers in its original context to making straight the paths of God, and specifically in reference to later escape from the Babylonian Captivity. Rather than the Masoretic text, the quote uses the wording of the Septuagint, as is usual for New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.
Considered by Christians to be without sin, Jesus nevertheless received John's baptism, which was for the repentance of sins (Mark 1:4 ). This is addressed in the Gospel of Matthew's account, which portrays John's refusal to baptize Jesus, saying, "I need to be baptized by you." Jesus persuades John to baptize him nonetheless (Matthew 3:13-15 ).
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (JN):
John’s baptism included the confession of sins. The Judaism of the day was familiar both with more generally formulaic confessions of sin and with a highly personalized confessional practice in which an enumeration of individual sinful deeds was expected The goal is truly to leave behind the sinful life one has led until now and to start out on the path to a new, changed life.
The actual ritual of Baptism symbolizes on one hand, immersion into the waters as a symbol of death, which recalls the death symbolism of the annihilating, destructive power of the ocean flood. The ancient mind perceived the ocean as a permanent threat to the cosmos, to the earth; it was the primeval flood that might submerge all life. The river (Jordan) could also assume this symbolic value for those who were immersed in it. But the flowing waters of the river are above all a symbol of life. The great rivers—the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris—are the great givers of life. The Jordan, too, is—even today—a source of life for the surrounding region. Immersion in the water is about purification, about liberation from the filth of the past that burdens and distorts life—it is about beginning again, and that means it is about death and resurrection, about starting life over again anew. So we could say that it is about rebirth. All of this will have to wait for Christian baptismal theology to be worked out explicitly, but the act of descending into the Jordan and coming up again out of the waters already implicitly contains this later development.
The real novelty is the fact that he—Jesus—wants to be baptized, that he blends into the gray mass of sinners waiting on the banks of the Jordan. We have just heard that the confession of sins is a component of Baptism. Baptism itself was a confession of sins and the attempt to put off an old, failed life and to receive a new one. Is that something Jesus could do? How could he confess sins? How could he separate himself from his previous life in order to start a new one? The dispute between the Baptist and Jesus that Matthew recounts for us was also an expression of the early Christians’ own question to Jesus: “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Mt 3:14). Matthew goes on to report for us that “Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented” (Mt 3:15). The key to interpreting Jesus’ answer is how we understand the word righteousness: The whole of righteousness must be fulfilled. In Jesus’ world, righteousness is man’s answer to the Torah, acceptance of the whole of God’s will.
The act of descending into the waters of this Baptism implies a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness in order to make a new beginning. In a world marked by sin, then, this Yes to the entire will of God also expresses solidarity with men, who have incurred guilt but yearn for righteousness. The significance of this event could not fully emerge until it was seen in light of the Cross and Resurrection. Descending into the water, the candidates for Baptism confess their sin and seek to be rid of their burden of guilt. What did Jesus do in this same situation? Luke, who throughout his Gospel is keenly attentive to Jesus’ prayer, and portrays him again and again at prayer—in conversation with the Father—tells us that Jesus was praying while he received Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21). Looking at the events in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankind’s guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross.
The whole significance of Jesus’ Baptism, the fact that he bears “all righteousness,” first comes to light on the Cross: The Baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out “This is my beloved Son” over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection. This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word baptism to refer to his death (cf. Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50).
To accept the invitation to be baptized now means to go to the place of Jesus’ Baptism. It is to go where he identifies himself with us and to receive there our identification with him. The point where he anticipates death has now become the point where we anticipate rising again with him. Paul develops this inner connection in his theology of Baptism (cf. Rom 6), though without explicitly mentioning Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan.
The iconographic tradition of Jesus’ Baptism depicts the water as a liquid tomb having the form of a dark cavern, which is in turn the iconographic sign of Hades, the underworld, or hell. Jesus’ descent into this watery tomb, into this inferno that envelops him from every side, is thus an anticipation of his act of descending into the underworld: “When he went down into the waters, he bound the strong man” (cf. Lk 11:22), says Cyril of Jerusalem. John Chrysostom writes: “Going down into the water and emerging again are the image of the descent into hell and the Resurrection.”
At this point I would merely like to underscore briefly three aspects of the scene. The first one is the image of heaven torn open: Heaven stands open above Jesus. His communion of will with the Father, his fulfillment of “all righteousness,” opens heaven, which is essentially the place where God’s will is perfectly fulfilled. The next aspect is the proclamation of Jesus’ mission by God, by the Father. This proclamation interprets not what Jesus does, but who he is: He is the beloved Son on whom God’s good pleasure rests. Finally, I would like to point out that in this scene, together with the Son, we encounter the Father and the Holy Spirit. The mystery of the Trinitarian God is beginning to emerge, even though its depths can be fully revealed only when Jesus’ journey is complete. For this very reason, though, there is an arc joining this beginning of Jesus’ journey and the words with which he sends his disciples into the world after his Resurrection: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The Baptism that Jesus’ disciples have been administering since he spoke those words is an entrance into the Master’s own Baptism—into the reality that he anticipated by means of it. That is the way to become a Christian.
comments by Edward Sri, professor of theology and Scripture:
At the heart of John’s prophetic message is the challenge to repent, which in Greek means to change one’s mind or perspective. In the Jewish tradition the Hebrew word for repent means to turn around, or return. John is calling for a complete change in thinking and conduct a decisive, fundamental change of direction in one’s life. In this, John stands in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who called on Israel to turn away from sin and return to the Lord. Behind the prophet’s call to repentance is a conviction that the nation is on a path to destruction and in need of radical reorientation. But John’s call to repentance comes with an even greater sense of urgency because he announces something no prophet before him could proclaim: the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Israel faces a unique, now-or-never opportunity to repent. The “kingdom of heaven” does not refer to a place a place, for example, where God and the angels dwell but to God's dynamic activity as ruler. God alone was king over Israel, and the prophets foretold that he would come as king, establish his reign in Jerusalem, and bring justice on earth. Thus in proclaiming that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” John is announcing that God’s promised reign is now dawning on Israel and the worl.
Matthew next shows how John’s preaching in the desert and announcing the kingdom of heaven fulfills a prophecy in Isaiah:
A voice of one crying out in the desert,
“Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” (Matt 3:3; see Isa 40:3)
What makes the baptism that Christ offers so powerful? It imparts an identity that we could never earn on our own. Through baptism, God freely forgives all our sins and fills us with his Holy Spirit, making us his children—a status we could not achieve through our own efforts (Catechism 1262, 1265). Christian baptism also gives us the power to live in a way that we could not do on our own. Baptism with the Holy Spirit does not merely express a desire to live a better life; it actually changes the person, uniting the soul with Christ’s death and resurrection and filling it with his divine life, so that it has the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit (Catechism 1227, 1262, 1265). Filled with Christ's Spirit, the Christian can begin to love not with his own fallen, selfish love, but with Christ’s divine love overcoming his weaknesses. As St. Paul wrote, “yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
[The Grace of Baptism in Catholicism
The Catechism says:
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16). The text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Several Fathers, including Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, vigorously reacted against the postponement of baptism, which they viewed as parental negligence, and begged parents not to delay the sacrament since it is necessary for salvation. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
]
Genealogy (Luke 3:23-3:38)
23 He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Matthew 1:2 begins the genealogy of Jesus with Abraham to emphasize Jesus' bonds with the people of Israel, Luke's universalism leads him to trace the descent of Jesus beyond Israel to Adam and beyond that to God (Luke 3:38) to stress again Jesus' divine sonship. The son of Nathan, the son of David: in keeping with Jesus' prophetic role in Luke and Acts (e.g., Luke 7:16, 39; 9:8; 13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37) Luke traces Jesus' Davidic ancestry through the prophet Nathan (see 2 Sam 7:2) rather than through King Solomon, as Matthew 1:6-7.
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (JN):
Luke does not place his genealogy of Jesus at the beginning of the Gospel, but connects it with the story of Jesus’ Baptism, to which it forms a conclusion. He tells us that at this point in time Jesus was about thirty years old, which means he had attained the age that conferred a right to public activity. In contrast to Matthew, Luke uses his genealogy to journey from Jesus back into past history. Abraham and David make their appearance, but without any particular emphasis. The family tree goes back to Adam, and so to creation, for once Luke comes to the name Adam, he adds: “of God.” This is a way of underscoring the universal scope of Jesus’ mission. He is the son of Adam—the son of man. Because he is man, all of us belong to him and he to us; in him humanity starts anew and reaches its destiny.
comments by Father Anthony Zimmerman:
We may speculate that our Adam and Eve ancestors were born into an existing population, but broke away from them and launched our race in isolation from the parent group. It is not at all inconceivable that a single pair of humans, or a small population, can become isolated from the rest of humanity in a hunter-gatherer kind of social situation.
Nor is it inconceivable that populations living prior to our Homo Sapiens race became extinct. We know of Australopithecus hominids from 4 million year old fossils (see Lucy, 202) but they are no more today. Fossils of Homo Habilis, of Homo Erectus, and of Neanderthal tell us the story that they once existed, but are no more. We know also that many nations of the Homo Sapiens race once flourished in great numbers, but have now become extinct.
Climatic conditions also played their role, and some believe that the Neanderthal people were wiped out when glaciers invaded their habitats, or when Homo Sapiens perhaps eliminated them.
Finally, it is not at all inconceivable that our Adam and Eve people would remain genetically isolated from other populations, either for geographic reasons, or because of social and linguistic barriers. Linguistic and cultural barriers can isolate genetic pools from each other as effectively as impassable mountain ranges, vast oceans, and impenetrable forests.
The theory of human evolution from an animal origin is compatible with the above theoretical scenario. After the original pair had become genetically isolated from their parent gene pool, their own genetic endowment could give rise to the vast population of the world today with its evidently rich genetic endowments.
Geneticist Jerome Lejeune, for example, observed that if our race is a new species, then a single couple to start the species is more logical than a group of people or a population:
"Indeed I am of the opinion that the whole chromosomal mechanics require that every species must have arisen in an extremely inbred and small population. The calculus from genetics shows that the optimal solution would be to start with a unique couple, carrier of the chromosomal novelty in the homozygous state" (Lejeune, private correspondence, 19 February 1987, permission obtained).
Genetic calculations also practically exclude the possibility that a Homo Sapiens race would begin spontaneously in several parts of the world. Rather, there can be only one source of our race, only one cross-over from the animal world into human society. That is, if a species-specific mutation from animal to human, or from one human species to another, occurred in Africa, for example, and another occurred in a genetically isolated population in Asia or elsewhere, the two new species would not be identical. They would not be capable of cross-fertilization to beget offspring. A concept that multiple lines evolved into a new species separately in genetically isolated situations, and that the species was the identical and single species of Homo Sapiens is, in all likelihood, not defensible by genetic calculus. Our Homo Sapiens race, therefore, if it is specifically different from Homo Habilis, Erectus, and Neanderthal, began at one place only, not in several and independent isolated gene pools.
Do theologians have reasons to conclude that it was one single couple who began our present human race, and to exclude even a small genetically isolated population of monogamous couples? Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to an initial ancestor "Adam, son of God" (3:38). This single source has symbolic significance, it appears, for the Evangelist makes quite an issue about the ancestry of Christ. The beginning of the genealogical tree is Adam. If Adam was not this specified individual but an unknown and unnamed person within an initial general population then Luke's superb narrative would lose its punch line. Luke's genealogy has a rhythmic regression through seventy-six generations of ancestors. We know many of them from the Bible as colorful individuals. The line of royal ancestry crescendoes to a climax in Adam, son of God:
Jesus, when he began his ministry was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was thought) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi... etc. etc.... the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Lk 3:23-38).
It would be an anti-climax to read instead at the end: " the son of Seth, the son of an unidentified parent in an initial population." Luke's charming genealogy builds up an esteem for Christ in the reader, who already knows the Adam well from the pages of the Bible, the one who is Christ's human ancestor as well as our own. Luke marks us as relatives of the human Christ, who shares His ancestry with us. We would extinguish and lose one very significant detail of the heritage of our Faith, I believe, if we would replace our "Adam" of Bible with a "Conglomerate Population" of science.
Two significant theological considerations converge, I believe: Luke states that the ancestor was Adam. Matthew states that he was monogamous. Put the two together, and I believe we have a good case for concluding that our race descended from one monogamous couple.
Paul marks a dramatic comparison between Christ our new spiritual father, and Adam our father in the flesh. Christ is the single source of supernatural life, Adam stands opposite Christ as the single source of our race.
The final word may not yet have been spoken, but as things stand today, we have no compelling reason to disown a monogamous couple, whom we conventionally name Adam and Eve, as our primal human ancestors. We would not improve the narration of the Bible on the one hand, nor scientific theory on the other, by naming Adam and Eve a population.
Evolution in the eyes of Catholicism (https://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution):
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, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
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.
Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).
According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order.
Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.
That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).
The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).
The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits ... If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason, and the will subject to God. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order. By sinning, however, Adam lost this original "state", not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).
According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life.
As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, CCC teaches, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).
It should be noted that in this evolutionary era Catholic teaching on original sin focuses more on its results than on its origins. As Cardinal Ratzinger had intimated in 1981, and as Pope Benedict XVI clarified in 2008: "How did it happen? This remains obscure.... Evil remains mysterious. It is presented as such in great images, as it is in chapter 3 of Genesis, with that scene of the two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man: a great image that makes us guess but cannot explain what is itself illogical."
 |
| Stained glass window at S. Peter and Paul Church in Kiel |
1
In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar's reign, when Pontius Pilate
was governor of Judaea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip
tetrarch of the territories of Ituraea and Trachonitis, Lysanias
tetrarch of Abilene,
2 and while the high-priesthood was held by Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah, in the desert.
3 He went through the whole Jordan area proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,
4 as it is written in the book of the sayings of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one that cries in the desert: Prepare a way for the Lord, make his paths straight!
5 Let every valley be filled in, every mountain and hill be levelled, winding ways be straightened and rough roads made smooth,
6 and all humanity will see the salvation of God.
7 He said, therefore, to the crowds who came to be baptised by him, 'Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming retribution?
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance, and do not start telling yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father," because, I tell you, God can raise children for Abraham from these stones.
9 Yes, even now the axe is being laid to the root of the trees, so that any tree failing to produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown on the fire.''
10 When all the people asked him, 'What must we do, then?'
11 he answered, 'Anyone who has two tunics must share with the one who has none, and anyone with something to eat must do the same.'
12 There were tax collectors, too, who came for baptism, and these said to him, 'Master, what must we do?'
13 He said to them, 'Exact no more than the appointed rate.'
14 Some soldiers asked him in their turn, 'What about us? What must we do?' He said to them, 'No intimidation! No extortion! Be content with your pay!'
15 A feeling of expectancy had grown among the people, who were beginning to wonder whether John might be the Christ,
16 so John declared before them all, 'I baptise you with water, but someone is coming, who is more powerful than me, and I am not fit to undo the strap of his sandals; he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
17 His winnowing-fan is in his hand, to clear his threshing-floor and to gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn in a fire that will never go out.'
18 And he proclaimed the good news to the people with many other exhortations too.
19 But Herod the tetrarch, censured by John for his relations with his brother's wife Herodias and for all the other crimes he had committed,
20 added a further crime to all the rest by shutting John up in prison.
21 Now it happened that when all the people had been baptised and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened
22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in a physical form, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son; today have I fathered you.'
23 When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old
2 and while the high-priesthood was held by Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah, in the desert.
3 He went through the whole Jordan area proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,
4 as it is written in the book of the sayings of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one that cries in the desert: Prepare a way for the Lord, make his paths straight!
5 Let every valley be filled in, every mountain and hill be levelled, winding ways be straightened and rough roads made smooth,
6 and all humanity will see the salvation of God.
7 He said, therefore, to the crowds who came to be baptised by him, 'Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming retribution?
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance, and do not start telling yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father," because, I tell you, God can raise children for Abraham from these stones.
9 Yes, even now the axe is being laid to the root of the trees, so that any tree failing to produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown on the fire.''
10 When all the people asked him, 'What must we do, then?'
11 he answered, 'Anyone who has two tunics must share with the one who has none, and anyone with something to eat must do the same.'
12 There were tax collectors, too, who came for baptism, and these said to him, 'Master, what must we do?'
13 He said to them, 'Exact no more than the appointed rate.'
14 Some soldiers asked him in their turn, 'What about us? What must we do?' He said to them, 'No intimidation! No extortion! Be content with your pay!'
15 A feeling of expectancy had grown among the people, who were beginning to wonder whether John might be the Christ,
16 so John declared before them all, 'I baptise you with water, but someone is coming, who is more powerful than me, and I am not fit to undo the strap of his sandals; he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
17 His winnowing-fan is in his hand, to clear his threshing-floor and to gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn in a fire that will never go out.'
18 And he proclaimed the good news to the people with many other exhortations too.
19 But Herod the tetrarch, censured by John for his relations with his brother's wife Herodias and for all the other crimes he had committed,
20 added a further crime to all the rest by shutting John up in prison.
21 Now it happened that when all the people had been baptised and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened
22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in a physical form, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son; today have I fathered you.'
23 When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old
In the gospels, the ministry of Jesus begins with his baptism in the countryside of Roman Judea and Transjordan, near the river Jordan, and ends in Jerusalem, following the Last Supper with his disciples.This event is recorded in the Canonical Gospels according Matthew, Mark and Luke.
John the Baptist preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins and in so doing he was preparing the way for the Lord. Jesus came to the Jordan River where he was baptized by John at a site traditionally known as Qasr al-Yahud (the Jews' Castle). This event concluded with the heavens opening, a dove-like descent of the Holy Spirit, and a voice from Heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased." The voice combines key phrases from the Old Testament: "My Son" (the Davidic king as God's adopted son in Psalms 2 and Psalms 10), "beloved" (Isaac in Genesis 22), and "with whom I am well pleased" (the servant of God in Isaiah 42:1).
In all three of the synoptic gospels, John the Baptist is described as completing a prophecy made by Isaiah; as the individual who would make straight the paths of him. The quote, coming from Isaiah 40:3, refers in its original context to making straight the paths of God, and specifically in reference to later escape from the Babylonian Captivity. Rather than the Masoretic text, the quote uses the wording of the Septuagint, as is usual for New Testament quotations of the Old Testament.
Considered by Christians to be without sin, Jesus nevertheless received John's baptism, which was for the repentance of sins (Mark 1:4 ). This is addressed in the Gospel of Matthew's account, which portrays John's refusal to baptize Jesus, saying, "I need to be baptized by you." Jesus persuades John to baptize him nonetheless (Matthew 3:13-15 ).
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (JN):
John’s baptism included the confession of sins. The Judaism of the day was familiar both with more generally formulaic confessions of sin and with a highly personalized confessional practice in which an enumeration of individual sinful deeds was expected The goal is truly to leave behind the sinful life one has led until now and to start out on the path to a new, changed life.
The actual ritual of Baptism symbolizes on one hand, immersion into the waters as a symbol of death, which recalls the death symbolism of the annihilating, destructive power of the ocean flood. The ancient mind perceived the ocean as a permanent threat to the cosmos, to the earth; it was the primeval flood that might submerge all life. The river (Jordan) could also assume this symbolic value for those who were immersed in it. But the flowing waters of the river are above all a symbol of life. The great rivers—the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris—are the great givers of life. The Jordan, too, is—even today—a source of life for the surrounding region. Immersion in the water is about purification, about liberation from the filth of the past that burdens and distorts life—it is about beginning again, and that means it is about death and resurrection, about starting life over again anew. So we could say that it is about rebirth. All of this will have to wait for Christian baptismal theology to be worked out explicitly, but the act of descending into the Jordan and coming up again out of the waters already implicitly contains this later development.
The real novelty is the fact that he—Jesus—wants to be baptized, that he blends into the gray mass of sinners waiting on the banks of the Jordan. We have just heard that the confession of sins is a component of Baptism. Baptism itself was a confession of sins and the attempt to put off an old, failed life and to receive a new one. Is that something Jesus could do? How could he confess sins? How could he separate himself from his previous life in order to start a new one? The dispute between the Baptist and Jesus that Matthew recounts for us was also an expression of the early Christians’ own question to Jesus: “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Mt 3:14). Matthew goes on to report for us that “Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented” (Mt 3:15). The key to interpreting Jesus’ answer is how we understand the word righteousness: The whole of righteousness must be fulfilled. In Jesus’ world, righteousness is man’s answer to the Torah, acceptance of the whole of God’s will.
The act of descending into the waters of this Baptism implies a confession of guilt and a plea for forgiveness in order to make a new beginning. In a world marked by sin, then, this Yes to the entire will of God also expresses solidarity with men, who have incurred guilt but yearn for righteousness. The significance of this event could not fully emerge until it was seen in light of the Cross and Resurrection. Descending into the water, the candidates for Baptism confess their sin and seek to be rid of their burden of guilt. What did Jesus do in this same situation? Luke, who throughout his Gospel is keenly attentive to Jesus’ prayer, and portrays him again and again at prayer—in conversation with the Father—tells us that Jesus was praying while he received Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21). Looking at the events in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burden of all mankind’s guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners. His inaugural gesture is an anticipation of the Cross.
The whole significance of Jesus’ Baptism, the fact that he bears “all righteousness,” first comes to light on the Cross: The Baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out “This is my beloved Son” over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection. This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word baptism to refer to his death (cf. Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50).
To accept the invitation to be baptized now means to go to the place of Jesus’ Baptism. It is to go where he identifies himself with us and to receive there our identification with him. The point where he anticipates death has now become the point where we anticipate rising again with him. Paul develops this inner connection in his theology of Baptism (cf. Rom 6), though without explicitly mentioning Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan.
The iconographic tradition of Jesus’ Baptism depicts the water as a liquid tomb having the form of a dark cavern, which is in turn the iconographic sign of Hades, the underworld, or hell. Jesus’ descent into this watery tomb, into this inferno that envelops him from every side, is thus an anticipation of his act of descending into the underworld: “When he went down into the waters, he bound the strong man” (cf. Lk 11:22), says Cyril of Jerusalem. John Chrysostom writes: “Going down into the water and emerging again are the image of the descent into hell and the Resurrection.”
At this point I would merely like to underscore briefly three aspects of the scene. The first one is the image of heaven torn open: Heaven stands open above Jesus. His communion of will with the Father, his fulfillment of “all righteousness,” opens heaven, which is essentially the place where God’s will is perfectly fulfilled. The next aspect is the proclamation of Jesus’ mission by God, by the Father. This proclamation interprets not what Jesus does, but who he is: He is the beloved Son on whom God’s good pleasure rests. Finally, I would like to point out that in this scene, together with the Son, we encounter the Father and the Holy Spirit. The mystery of the Trinitarian God is beginning to emerge, even though its depths can be fully revealed only when Jesus’ journey is complete. For this very reason, though, there is an arc joining this beginning of Jesus’ journey and the words with which he sends his disciples into the world after his Resurrection: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The Baptism that Jesus’ disciples have been administering since he spoke those words is an entrance into the Master’s own Baptism—into the reality that he anticipated by means of it. That is the way to become a Christian.
comments by Edward Sri, professor of theology and Scripture:
At the heart of John’s prophetic message is the challenge to repent, which in Greek means to change one’s mind or perspective. In the Jewish tradition the Hebrew word for repent means to turn around, or return. John is calling for a complete change in thinking and conduct a decisive, fundamental change of direction in one’s life. In this, John stands in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who called on Israel to turn away from sin and return to the Lord. Behind the prophet’s call to repentance is a conviction that the nation is on a path to destruction and in need of radical reorientation. But John’s call to repentance comes with an even greater sense of urgency because he announces something no prophet before him could proclaim: the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Israel faces a unique, now-or-never opportunity to repent. The “kingdom of heaven” does not refer to a place a place, for example, where God and the angels dwell but to God's dynamic activity as ruler. God alone was king over Israel, and the prophets foretold that he would come as king, establish his reign in Jerusalem, and bring justice on earth. Thus in proclaiming that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” John is announcing that God’s promised reign is now dawning on Israel and the worl.
Matthew next shows how John’s preaching in the desert and announcing the kingdom of heaven fulfills a prophecy in Isaiah:
A voice of one crying out in the desert,
“Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.” (Matt 3:3; see Isa 40:3)
What makes the baptism that Christ offers so powerful? It imparts an identity that we could never earn on our own. Through baptism, God freely forgives all our sins and fills us with his Holy Spirit, making us his children—a status we could not achieve through our own efforts (Catechism 1262, 1265). Christian baptism also gives us the power to live in a way that we could not do on our own. Baptism with the Holy Spirit does not merely express a desire to live a better life; it actually changes the person, uniting the soul with Christ’s death and resurrection and filling it with his divine life, so that it has the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit (Catechism 1227, 1262, 1265). Filled with Christ's Spirit, the Christian can begin to love not with his own fallen, selfish love, but with Christ’s divine love overcoming his weaknesses. As St. Paul wrote, “yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
[The Grace of Baptism in Catholicism
The Catechism says:
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16). The text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Several Fathers, including Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, vigorously reacted against the postponement of baptism, which they viewed as parental negligence, and begged parents not to delay the sacrament since it is necessary for salvation. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
]
Genealogy (Luke 3:23-3:38)
 |
| Albrecht Dürer - Adam and Eve (1507) |
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Matthew 1:2 begins the genealogy of Jesus with Abraham to emphasize Jesus' bonds with the people of Israel, Luke's universalism leads him to trace the descent of Jesus beyond Israel to Adam and beyond that to God (Luke 3:38) to stress again Jesus' divine sonship. The son of Nathan, the son of David: in keeping with Jesus' prophetic role in Luke and Acts (e.g., Luke 7:16, 39; 9:8; 13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37) Luke traces Jesus' Davidic ancestry through the prophet Nathan (see 2 Sam 7:2) rather than through King Solomon, as Matthew 1:6-7.
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (JN):
Luke does not place his genealogy of Jesus at the beginning of the Gospel, but connects it with the story of Jesus’ Baptism, to which it forms a conclusion. He tells us that at this point in time Jesus was about thirty years old, which means he had attained the age that conferred a right to public activity. In contrast to Matthew, Luke uses his genealogy to journey from Jesus back into past history. Abraham and David make their appearance, but without any particular emphasis. The family tree goes back to Adam, and so to creation, for once Luke comes to the name Adam, he adds: “of God.” This is a way of underscoring the universal scope of Jesus’ mission. He is the son of Adam—the son of man. Because he is man, all of us belong to him and he to us; in him humanity starts anew and reaches its destiny.
comments by Father Anthony Zimmerman:
We may speculate that our Adam and Eve ancestors were born into an existing population, but broke away from them and launched our race in isolation from the parent group. It is not at all inconceivable that a single pair of humans, or a small population, can become isolated from the rest of humanity in a hunter-gatherer kind of social situation.
Nor is it inconceivable that populations living prior to our Homo Sapiens race became extinct. We know of Australopithecus hominids from 4 million year old fossils (see Lucy, 202) but they are no more today. Fossils of Homo Habilis, of Homo Erectus, and of Neanderthal tell us the story that they once existed, but are no more. We know also that many nations of the Homo Sapiens race once flourished in great numbers, but have now become extinct.
Climatic conditions also played their role, and some believe that the Neanderthal people were wiped out when glaciers invaded their habitats, or when Homo Sapiens perhaps eliminated them.
Finally, it is not at all inconceivable that our Adam and Eve people would remain genetically isolated from other populations, either for geographic reasons, or because of social and linguistic barriers. Linguistic and cultural barriers can isolate genetic pools from each other as effectively as impassable mountain ranges, vast oceans, and impenetrable forests.
The theory of human evolution from an animal origin is compatible with the above theoretical scenario. After the original pair had become genetically isolated from their parent gene pool, their own genetic endowment could give rise to the vast population of the world today with its evidently rich genetic endowments.
Geneticist Jerome Lejeune, for example, observed that if our race is a new species, then a single couple to start the species is more logical than a group of people or a population:
"Indeed I am of the opinion that the whole chromosomal mechanics require that every species must have arisen in an extremely inbred and small population. The calculus from genetics shows that the optimal solution would be to start with a unique couple, carrier of the chromosomal novelty in the homozygous state" (Lejeune, private correspondence, 19 February 1987, permission obtained).
Genetic calculations also practically exclude the possibility that a Homo Sapiens race would begin spontaneously in several parts of the world. Rather, there can be only one source of our race, only one cross-over from the animal world into human society. That is, if a species-specific mutation from animal to human, or from one human species to another, occurred in Africa, for example, and another occurred in a genetically isolated population in Asia or elsewhere, the two new species would not be identical. They would not be capable of cross-fertilization to beget offspring. A concept that multiple lines evolved into a new species separately in genetically isolated situations, and that the species was the identical and single species of Homo Sapiens is, in all likelihood, not defensible by genetic calculus. Our Homo Sapiens race, therefore, if it is specifically different from Homo Habilis, Erectus, and Neanderthal, began at one place only, not in several and independent isolated gene pools.
Do theologians have reasons to conclude that it was one single couple who began our present human race, and to exclude even a small genetically isolated population of monogamous couples? Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to an initial ancestor "Adam, son of God" (3:38). This single source has symbolic significance, it appears, for the Evangelist makes quite an issue about the ancestry of Christ. The beginning of the genealogical tree is Adam. If Adam was not this specified individual but an unknown and unnamed person within an initial general population then Luke's superb narrative would lose its punch line. Luke's genealogy has a rhythmic regression through seventy-six generations of ancestors. We know many of them from the Bible as colorful individuals. The line of royal ancestry crescendoes to a climax in Adam, son of God:
Jesus, when he began his ministry was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was thought) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi... etc. etc.... the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Lk 3:23-38).
It would be an anti-climax to read instead at the end: " the son of Seth, the son of an unidentified parent in an initial population." Luke's charming genealogy builds up an esteem for Christ in the reader, who already knows the Adam well from the pages of the Bible, the one who is Christ's human ancestor as well as our own. Luke marks us as relatives of the human Christ, who shares His ancestry with us. We would extinguish and lose one very significant detail of the heritage of our Faith, I believe, if we would replace our "Adam" of Bible with a "Conglomerate Population" of science.
Two significant theological considerations converge, I believe: Luke states that the ancestor was Adam. Matthew states that he was monogamous. Put the two together, and I believe we have a good case for concluding that our race descended from one monogamous couple.
Paul marks a dramatic comparison between Christ our new spiritual father, and Adam our father in the flesh. Christ is the single source of supernatural life, Adam stands opposite Christ as the single source of our race.
The final word may not yet have been spoken, but as things stand today, we have no compelling reason to disown a monogamous couple, whom we conventionally name Adam and Eve, as our primal human ancestors. We would not improve the narration of the Bible on the one hand, nor scientific theory on the other, by naming Adam and Eve a population.
Evolution in the eyes of Catholicism (https://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution):
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, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
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.
Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
"The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).
According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order.
Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.
That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).
The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).
It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).
The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits ... If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason, and the will subject to God. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order. By sinning, however, Adam lost this original "state", not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).
According to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life.
As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, CCC teaches, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).
It should be noted that in this evolutionary era Catholic teaching on original sin focuses more on its results than on its origins. As Cardinal Ratzinger had intimated in 1981, and as Pope Benedict XVI clarified in 2008: "How did it happen? This remains obscure.... Evil remains mysterious. It is presented as such in great images, as it is in chapter 3 of Genesis, with that scene of the two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man: a great image that makes us guess but cannot explain what is itself illogical."
No comments:
Post a Comment