Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good explanation for the discussion in Matthew 22:41-45?

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
Let me give you the explanation right out of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible…”Jesus’ question concerns the meaning of Ps 110:1. The Pharisees (22:42) assume it mentions the Messiah, but their understanding of the verse is partial and inadequate. Psalm 110 is an enthronement psalm that was probably used at coronation ceremonies for Davidic kings. In context, David addresses his son as “my Lord” (22:44), a title more appropriate for one’s superior. This implies that the expected Messiah would be greater than David himself, a crucial point missed by the Pharisees (cf Acts 2:34-36). As Messiah, Jesus is the son of David (Matt 1:1) and yet greater than David as the Son of God (Matt 3:17; 16:16; 17:5) (CCC 439, 447).”

Was the Mosaic Law an attempt to restore Grace?

The Mosaic Law instituted Stage Two of salvation history, the Age of Law. It began with Moses and lasted through the history of ancient Israel (see question “If because of Adam’s fall and his loss of Grace, were all people without Grace until Christ restored it?”). Through it, the Jews received both the moral law (i.e. 10 Commandments) and ceremonial law (“works of the law” in the writings of St. Paul).

The ceremonial laws were temporary and given so that the people would recognize their sinfulness and desire true righteousness. (This would finally come true through Christ.) They needed to recognize that they needed “circumcised hearts” not just fleshly circumcision (see Deuteronomy 30).

In other words, the law was given to show the need for the grace of the Spirit. It shows us what sin is. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet” (Romans 7:7).

The law (Torah) given to Moses by God was a great advantage for the covenant people compared to the rest of the world because it ordered their worship, gave them clear guidelines for living, and drew them closer to God. The law was a necessary step toward the progress of the coming of Jesus Christ. It helped prepare the way by showing people their need for new hearts.

If because of Adam’s fall and his loss of Grace, were all people without Grace until Christ restored it?

It would be more correct to say that in the Old Testament people didn’t have the indwelling of the Trinity in the same manner we do now through the sacrament of baptism, but they still had an avenue to saving grace.

Just as Our Lady was saved by the application of what Christ merited on the cross before it actually happened in history, so too could those in the Old Testament receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice before it actually happened in time. This would be considered what the Catechism calls the Baptism of Desire (CCC 1260).

We would call this Stage One of salvation history in which people lived under the natural law. In fact, there are 3 stages of salvation history which we can infer from Romans 5:12-14, 19-21 (St. Thomas Aquinas also discusses them directly in his Commentary on St. John (n. 338. 150):

1. The age of nature, which begins at creation, runs through the era of the patriarchs, to the time of Moses
2. The age of law, beginning when Moses received the law from God at Mt. Sinai continuing through the history of ancient Israel; The Mosaic law, as it is called, contained a moral law which continues to be in effect (i.e. the 10 Commandments) and ceremonial laws which pertained only to Israel (e.g. circumcision). These ceremonial laws were superseded by the New Covenant law of grace which came through Jesus Christ.
3. The age of grace, which began with the advent of Jesus Christ. (This is also referred to as the age of the Church…cf CCC 1076.)

In his discussion of those abiding by the natural law before the time of Christ, St. Paul says that “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Rom 2:14-16).

In other words, Gentiles follow the natural law that God has inscribed on their hearts. They didn’t have the privilege of the Mosaic law by birth (as did the Israelites). When Paul says that the Gentiles keep the law by nature, he means, not by nature apart from grace, but by nature that is healed and restored by grace.

A modern example of this would be how God can save an African whose tribe is unknown to the rest of the world and has not heard the Gospel. Though sacraments are now the ordinary means of salvation, we know that God is not bound by the sacraments and so can apply the merits of Christ as he wills.

What does the Church teach about the ordination of women to the priesthood?

Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone 
(Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) by His Holiness John Paul II

Declaration On the Question of Admission Of Women To The Ministerial Priesthood 
(Inter Insigniores) by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

On The Dignity And Vocation Of Women On The Occasion Of The Marian Year 
(Mulieris Dignitatem) by His Holiness John Paul II

Does Jesus reject Mary when she comes looking for him while he is teaching (Matthew 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35, Lk 8:19-21)?

What actually happens in these passages?  Apparently ignoring the fact that his “mother and brothers” want to speak with him, Jesus replies, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother ” (Matthew 12:46-50).  Far from rejecting his mother in this passage, it is actually an implicit praise. Was it not Mary who said, “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38)? Mary lived her entire life in humble obedience to the will of God, from Christ’s birth all the way to the foot of the cross.

In Luke’s account of this scene, Jesus says, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (Luke 8:19-21; see also Luke 11:27-28). This even more explicitly parallels Mary’s words at the Annunciation, and also echoes other passages in Luke. In both Luke 2:19 (the presentation in the Temple) and Luke 2:51 (the finding in the Temple), we hear that Mary “kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.” Furthermore, these passages also point to Mary in that she not only obeyed God but literally kept his Word within her womb for nine months.

Why is Mary given so much honor when Scripture says that it is John the Baptist who is “the greatest among those born of women”?

Jesus says in Matthew 11:11, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” This verse, while certainly praising John the Baptist and his exalted position in the economy of salvation, in no way discounts Catholic beliefs regarding Mary. If we take these words of Jesus from Matthew’s Gospel completely literally, they would be reduced to nonsense. Was Christ himself not born of a woman? Furthermore, were not all those in the kingdom of heaven also born of women?

Rather, Jesus is referring to the abundance of grace given to those in the New Covenant, in contrast to even the greatest in the Old Covenant including John the Baptist. We can also say that through Mary’s Immaculate Conception, she received the grace of the New Covenant in an anticipatory manner. She was preserved from sin by the grace from the cross applied to her at the moment of her conception, an honor which even John the Baptist did not receive.

If Mary was immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be without original sin, doesn’t that mean that her parents had to have been immaculately conceived as well?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception doesn’t imply that Mary’s ancestors were all sinless.  It’s not based on the (false) premise that Mary had to be without original sin in order for Jesus to be so as well.  Rather, it’s based on the principle that it’s fitting, or appropriate, that the Mother of God be without any stain of sin in order to most worthily bear the Son of God in her womb.  In other words, Mary didn’t have to be without sin; Jesus could have been born of a sinful woman just as easily as He was born of Mary.  However, God chose to preserve Mary from all sin because it’s appropriate that the dwelling place of God (His mother) be immaculate.

Why are the genealogies of Jesus given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke different?

There are several possible explanations for the differences between the genealogies presented by Matthew and Luke.  Some people believe that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, whereby Jesus is legally descended from David (even though Joseph wasn’t His biological father, he was Jesus’ legal father), and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, whereby Jesus is biologically descended from David.

Another possible explanation is that there are gaps in both lists (which, given the length of the lists, is almost certain, and which was common in ancient genealogies) and that they simply list different generations.  Either way, both genealogies trace Jesus’ ancestral line back to David, showing that He is qualified to be the Messiah.

How many women named Mary are mentioned in the New Testament?

The New Testament mentions eight different women named Mary:

1. Mary the mother of Jesus
2. Mary Magdalene, the first one to see Jesus after He had resurrected (John 20:11-18)
3. Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha (Luke 10:38-42, John 11:1-6)
4. Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
5. The “other Mary” (Matthew 27:61)
6. Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12)
7. Mary of Rome (Romans 16:6)
8. Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25)

There are two important points to note with this list:

The “other Mary,” because she is mentioned so close to Mary the mother of James and Joseph, is probably the same person, shortening the list to seven.

Some scholars think that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is also the wife of Clopas, since both were present at the crucifixion, which if true would shorten the list as well.

This is an important issue because it helps to support the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  Protestants often cite the mention of Jesus’ brothers (Matthew 13:55) as proof that Mary didn’t remain a virgin all her life.  However, these “brothers” (in Jesus’ time this word could also refer to cousins) of Jesus were actually sons of a different Mary (they were James and Joseph, the sons of the fourth Mary on the list), not the mother of Jesus, so we can see that this argument does not in fact disprove the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How do we know that Adam is to serve as the high priest of creation?

The Hebrew words translated as “till and keep” in Genesis 2:15 are found together in only two other places in the Old Testament, Numbers 8:24-26 and 18:4-5, both of which describe the priestly duties of the Levites.  Thus, when we read these two words together in the creation account in Genesis, we should recognize the priestly overtones that they carry.

Were Mary and Joseph truly married if they never consummated their union?

A marriage begins to exist once the couple exchange vows (CCC 1626), and even though it becomes absolutely indissoluble only after it’s consummated, consummation isn’t necessary for it to be a true marriage.  So even though Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, it was still a true marriage; they just never consummated it because they had a unique calling to be the human parents of Jesus.

Who were Mary’s parents?

We don’t know anything about them beyond what comes to us in tradition.  Traditionally, they’re called Anne and Joachim, but we don’t even know for sure if those names are correct.  However, the Church honors them as saints because they were the ones who taught Mary to be faithful to God and who gave her the foundation in her faith that she needed to live a life of holiness, to be the Mother of God, and to stay with her son Jesus all the way to the cross.

Do we have to believe in approved apparitions of Mary?  And can we believe in apparitions that haven’t been approved?

When the Church approves a Marian apparition, it’s not saying that it really is authentic or that we have to believe it.  Rather, the Church’s approval simply means that the faithful may safely believe in the apparition and that the message doesn’t contain anything contrary to the Catholic faith.  Conversely, if the Church condemns an apparition, then the faithful can’t believe it, and we can’t abide by its message.  And if the Church simply withholds judgment and neither approves or condemns an apparition, the faithful may believe in it, but they must be very careful to ensure that the message is fully in line with Catholic teaching before choosing to believe it.  In such cases, the Church always has the final say about whether or not an alleged apparition is safe to believe, and we must always submit to its judgment when it decides one way or the other, even if this means ceasing to believe in an apparition that we previously thought was authentic.

In all this, it’s important to keep in mind the difference between public revelation (doctrines and dogmas) and private revelation (of which Marian apparitions are a part).  Public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle in the first century, is the deposit of faith, the content of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  This kind of revelation is the foundation and content of all of our doctrines and dogmas and must be believed by all Catholics.  Private revelation, on the other hand, consists of supernatural messages from God given to us to help us grow closer to Him.  Examples of it are Marian apparitions and the devotion to the Divine Mercy given to St. Faustina.  Private revelation can never contradict, add to, or take the place of public revelation.  It does not form the basis of any of our doctrines or dogmas, and the faithful are not obligated to believe it.  It is simply an aid to further us along the path of holiness and to bring us closer to Christ.

How do we know that the James and Joseph of Matthew 13:55 are the same ones named in Matthew 27:56?

In 27:56, Matthew calls Mary the mother of James and Joseph, implying that he expects his readers to know who James and Joseph are.  They weren’t famous members of the Apostolic Church, so we have to go back to Matthew’s Gospel to figure out who they were.  The only brothers with those names mentioned in the Gospel are Jesus’ relatives, so it makes sense that these are the James and Joseph of Matthew 27:56.

Some people say that the Greek phrase for “until” in Matthew 1:25, heos hou, actually does imply that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, unlike the word heos by itself, which is used in all the verses used to support the Catholic understanding of “until” in Matthew 1:25.

This is an incorrect understanding of Greek.  For example, Acts 25:21 uses heos hou without implying that things change after the “until” clause.  It says, “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.”  In this passage, Paul was not going to be released after being sent to Caesar.  The point is simply that Paul will be kept in custody until then, without implying anything about what will happen when he is sent to Caesar.  Similarly, in Matthew 1:25, Matthew is simply saying that Mary and Joseph had no sexual relations before Jesus was born, but he wasn’t implying anything about whether or not they had sexual relations afterwards.

For more information on this question, see this article by Fr. Ron Tacelli

How do I know if I am using a Catholic Bible?

Any Bible with a bishop’s imprimatur can be considered a Catholic Bible though, in practice, such things are now usually handled at the level of national bishops’ councils. So, whether a Bible is Catholic is an easy question; if it is, it will say so. But not all Catholic Bibles are equally useful for study. For Example, the New Jerusalem’s very dynamic translation means that it will not stand up to a very close reading.

What translation of the Bible is the best for this study?

If someone is starting out Bible study afresh, we would strongly suggest that they begin using the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). It is the translation used in all of our materials. We do not, however, insist on it and some people like to stay with the New American Bible (NAB) as it helps them become more intimately familiar with the language of the readings at Mass.

What is typology?

Typology is the study of “types” or “foreshadows” in the Bible and is one of the most important tools we have for understanding Scripture. The Catechism tells us typology “discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time” (CCC 128). In other words, something we see in the Old Testament may foreshadow something in the New Testament. For example, the Fathers of the Church see the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites in the book of Exodus as a “type” or foreshadowing of the sacrament of baptism. They see the great Flood as a type of baptism as well. There are also characters in the Old Testament who are clearly types or foreshadowing of Christ himself; Adam, Isaac, Moses, and David, to name a few. They do things that remind us of, and point us to Christ. Their actions also help us to understand Christ and what he accomplished for us.

We see a lot of typology along the road of salvation history because essentially, the whole Old Testament story is directed toward Christ and the New Testament. Though the Old Testament has meaning on its own, so to speak, it is written to be in unity with the New Testament since both Testaments have God as their author. As the author of history, God made some events in salvation history point forward toward coming events. Remember that Scripture is the story of salvation history beginning with Adam, culminating in Christ. The Old Testament contains the story of the creation of the world, the Fall, and then the story of our redemption beginning with Israel and pointing toward Jesus and the Church. Therefore we see a lot in the Old Testament that points us to the New Testament.

Once we apply the principle of typology to our studies we begin to more fully understand all of Scripture. As Saint Augustine said, “The old is revealed in the new, and the new is hidden in the old.”

Has the old covenant been abolished?

Christ himself gives us the answer: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). By “the law and the prophets” Jesus is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, which are still valid — indeed, they are fulfilled — in the New. Christ comes to restore what has been lost through disobedience and infidelity. His act of restoration, however, is also a work of transformation. So we must interpret the Old Testament, and its law and worship, in light of their fulfillment in the New Testament and the Church.

What is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments?

The Old and New Testaments are inseparably united in Jesus Christ. Tradition tells us that the whole Bible is about Christ. Jesus himself taught this on the first Easter Sunday as he walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The disciples did not recognize him; and, as they walked, they expressed their disappointment that their Master had not turned out to be the messiah they had expected. Jesus notes their lack of faith and goes on to explain all the Scriptures to them. Yet Luke doesn’t tell us what Jesus said, but informs us rather of his teaching method: “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Lk 24:27). In other words, Jesus showed them how to interpret the Old Testament. It is done in the light of Christ. The key to Jesus’ method is what the Church calls “typology.”

How is Scripture related to liturgy?

Most people know that scripture plays a large part in our liturgical celebrations, but what they might not realize is that scripture is actually about liturgy and was made for the liturgy. We would go so far as to say that its proper home is within the liturgy. The Bible was not canonized primarily for private reading. Rather, it was formed for public reading and was compiled for the liturgy. In other words, the Church defined the canon at various councils (i.e. Carthage and Hippo) so that everyone would know which books were to be used as part of the liturgy. In fact, along with other criteria (e.g. orthodoxy and catholicity), existing liturgical use was a decisive factor in determining which books should be included in the Bible. So in a sense, canonization began in the Church long before any formal declaration by the Church.

While scripture was formed for the liturgy it is also about liturgy. In fact, liturgical action runs through all of salvation history and is inseparable from it. Examples of this include the sacrifice of Cain and Abel, Noah’s sacrifice after the flood, Abraham’s offering of Isaac, the giving of the Law (which is far more about ritual worship than about public morals!), and the building of the Temple. All the key moments in salvation history revolve around liturgy. God often revealed himself to humanity through liturgical action. Jesus simply continued this tradition, especially through Baptism and the Eucharist. In fact, the sacrifice of Christ was the fulfillment of those Old Testament sacrificial liturgies. Scripture isn’t just a part of liturgy, it is essential to our liturgical life.

How is Scripture related to the Church?

Catholics believe that authentic interpretation comes only through”the living teaching office of the Church” (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum). Under the guidance of the Church we approach Scripture as a whole, paying special attention to its “content and unity.” Any interpretation must also fit together with other truths of the faith and within God’s revealed plan. We call this the “analogy of faith.” The Council went on to teach “that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others” (DV 10).

But the relationship between Scripture and the Church is deeper than mere guidance. As Catholics we read the Bible from the heart of the Church, in light of the Church’s worship and living Tradition. Sacred Scripture is most at home in the liturgy. This is where Scripture comes alive. “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord…especially in the sacred liturgy” (CCC 141).

Are Protestant Bibles different from ours?

Most Protestant Bibles contain seven fewer books than the Catholic Bible. These are known as the “deutero-canonical books.” They were rejected by the Protestant Reformers, even though the books had been approved by the Church and used by Christians for more than 1,000 years.

Do Protestants approach Scripture differently from Catholics?

For Protestants, reading and interpreting Scripture is often a private matter and they consider the Bible to be the sole source for truths of the faith. Many do not believe in Sacred Tradition or in the authority of the Church. In this arrangement, each individual becomes his own authority when it comes to trying to figure out what the Bible is saying. This approach has led to the existence of thousands of different Protestant denominations, professing a wide variety of sometimes contradictory doctrines.

Is the Bible historical?

Since God is its primary author, we believe scripture to be “inspired” or “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). We also believe it to be without error since God cannot lie. But he did not write it all alone. Working in history, he used human authors to write scripture without taking away their freedom as writers. So, yes, it is historical. But we must remember that the Bible is ancient literature and as such is full of poems, stories, and dialogues as well as different literary techniques. If we want to understand what the human authors were trying to say (what we call the “literal sense”), the Catechism tells us we have to “take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current” (CCC 110).

In other words, they didn’t write history like we do today. Biblical authors spotlight God’s relationship with his people instead of simply documenting “important” events and people. Scripture describes what we call “salvation history,” which is the historical unfolding of God’s plan to save us. The people, places and events in Scripture correspond to God’s eternal plan. It is “his-story.”

What does the Church teach about the Creation v. Evolution debate?

Many people tend to frame the creation narrative in terms of how the world was created and fall into debates about creationism and evolution. The problem with this is that Genesis 1 primarily intends to show us why God created the world, not how. Don’t forget that Scripture is historical, but it is religious history.

Creationists hold to a literal interpretation of the seven days of creation. Many also believe that evolutionists are anti-Christian. However, properly understood as nothing more than a natural theory as to how the earth has aged, evolution poses no problem with regard what the Church teaches. But when evolution attempts to explain the origin of the world without God (e.g. Darwinism) it is no longer acceptable. In other words, the Church tells us that we must hold to the fact that God is the origin of all things…period. He created the world out of nothing. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host (stars, nebulae, planets) by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6). Creation is not the result of blind chance. It is the result of God’s creative act.

Why wasn’t Cain’s sacrifice acceptable to the Lord?

We know that Cain’s offering “wasn’t good enough” because Scripture tells us in Genesis 4:5 “but for Cain and his offering he (God) had no regard.” Cain gets angry and kills his brother out of jealousy. His offering wasn’t accepted because he didn’t offer the right kind of sacrifice. We can presume from the fact that they are even offering sacrifices that they knew how and what they were supposed to do. They were to offer a blood sacrifice as a sin offering. (See Lev. 17:11 for an explanation of the relationship between sacrifices for sin and the offering of blood.) As a “tiller of the soil” (Gen 4:2), Cain brought forth a sacrifice that glorified his own labors as opposed to offering the sacrifice God required. This is why his sacrifice was not acceptable. So it wasn’t even that “his heart just wasn’t in it”, he wasn’t even making the kind of sacrifice that he had been told to.

For more information on this topic see pages 78-79 in “A Father Who Keeps His Promises.”

How many children did Adam and Eve have?

The short answer is “We don’t know for sure because Scripture doesn’t tell us exactly.” We do know from Genesis 4:1-2, 25 that they had Cain, Abel and Seth. Then in Genesis 5:4 it says “and he (Adam) had other sons and daughters.” Certainly they had a whole bunch. Don’t forget that God commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply, and subdue the earth” (Gen. 1:28) We know there was consanguinity (incestuous marriage) in the Old Testament which was then licit, but is now opposed to canon law so there certainly a lot of people being born. (For more information on this, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm.)

Where did Cain get his wife?

We know from Genesis 5:4 that Adam and Eve had lots and lots more children than just Cain, Abel and Seth (especially since they lived so long). Don’t forget that God commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply”. Presumably, their offspring began to intermarry and that is how Cain found his wife. To intermarry so closely now would be against canon law, but it was the only way for humanity to perpetuate itself then. (For more reading on this topic, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm.)

Where is the Garden of Eden?

The short answer is “We don’t know.” Many have speculated, but there is no clear proof of an exact location. Most likely it was located in the Middle East. Scripture is vague on this question giving us this description of its location “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” (Genesis 2:8-14 RSV) (For a more in-depth look at the topic take a look at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm.)

What is the first promise that a savior will redeem the human race?

Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This verse is called the Protoevangelium (the “First Gospel”) The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes reference to it in paragraph 411:

“The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.”

Did Adam and Eve understand the choice they made when they sinned?

Adam and Eve were not “simpletons”. Rather, they were created in a state of “original holiness” and “original justice” and enjoyed a relationship with God that is only surpassed by what we will experience in the new creation with Christ. (CCC 374). Not only that, we know that Scripture tells us they were created in the “image and likeness of God”. They had special dignity. They were the crown of creation. Indeed, he gave them dominion over all creation. Also, they were free from the disordered desires that cause us to sin. (See CCC 377) In other words, they didn’t have our weaknesses and were, in fact, superior to us as preternatural beings. Given that they were more virtuous than us, they certainly had the ability to recognize sin more easily. Sin darkens our intellect and weakens our will and so makes it easier for us to fall into trouble. Saintly people are saintly because they have a very clear understanding of sin and shun it. The same can be said about Adam and Eve. They were in communion with God to a degree that we have not experienced and as such had the ability to know right and wrong.

Did they understand the ramifications of their actions, the answer is an unequivocal “yes”. They knew that if they ate of the fruit they would die. Otherwise, God’s warning of death should they disobey would be meaningless. (See Genesis 2:17) They had to know if they were acting rightly or wrongly.

For a deeper study on the creation narrative take a look at the lesson that is on our website.
Also, see these Catechism references: CCC 374, CCC 355, CCC 357, CCC 375

How is Adam both a royal firstborn son and a priest?

Since the Sabbath was the sign of the covenant God made with creation, and especially man, we are called to “remember” and “keep” it. (Ex. 20:8) As the crown of creation, mankind, specifically Adam, was called to two things from the beginning: Given that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, to be in union with God’s royal, so to speak, family, he was to exercise a royal dominion over the rest of creation. (Gen 1:26-31) Adam was also to attain to priestly holiness.

Perhaps it is easier to see how Adam was to exercise dominion over creation since Scripture says that explicitly. Let’s take a look at his call to priestly holiness: Genesis tells us that Adam was called to “till” and “keep” the garden (Gen. 2:15). The two Hebrew words are abodah and shamar. We only see these same words together in one other place in Scripture (Numbers 3:7-8; 8:26; 18:5-6 ) in reference to the duties of the Levites, who were the tribe of priests in Israel after Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32.

The Garden of Eden itself is a type (remember “typology”) of sanctuary and there are many parallels between it and Israel’s tabernacle and temple. For example, all were entered from the East and like the sword-wielding cherubim that guarded the garden entrance after Adam and Eve were expelled, Solomon’s temple is described as having two cherubim guarding the sanctuary.

Adam’s work and worship were meant to go hand in hand. As a son of God, Adam was to be both king and priest. God’s twofold action on the seventh day made this possible. The “blessing” of God made it possible for Adam to be king and God’s hallowing action made it possible for him to be a holy priest. “So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.”(Gen. 2:3) God’s action on the Sabbath connected these two roles and made them possible. This connection of the role of priest and king is a very important motif as we will see as we travel through the covenants. This role of priest and king is essentially what we are all called to. After the Fall, it is the role that the children of Israel are supposed to play with regard to their brother nations. Noah, Abraham, and Moses display these same characteristics. Most especially in the Old Testament we will see David playing the role of priest/king. Jesus himself is the fulfillment of that role. He is our High Priest and our King. This is why he is called the New Adam. He has restored to humanity what was lost in Adam.

For more information on this topic look at our online Genesis to Jesus Bible study.

How is God’s creation like a tabernacle and a temple?

By reading the creation story according to the “content and unity” of the entire Bible, we see something else that’s important about the story of creation. We see that the creation account is describing God’s creation of the world as the building of a temple, a holy place where God will dwell and meet His creatures. Like the Temple He later ordered to be built in Jerusalem, the “temple” of creation is a holy place where He will dwell and where men and women will worship and offer sacrifice. We see this in the Book of Job, Chapter 38, where the creation of the world is described in terms of temple building.

In fact, if we compare the creation account with the accounts of the building of the tabernacle and the Temple, we’ll see that both of these holy dwellings are described in terms very similar to those used to describe the creation of the world. For instance, when Moses constructs the tabernacle, God speaks to Him 10 times (“The Lord said to Moses”). It’s no coincidence that God spoke 10 times in Genesis 1(“Let there be…”). And there are more parallels: God beholds that His creation is good (Genesis 1:31). Moses beholds that his work has been done as the Lord commanded (Exodus 39:43). Compare also Genesis 2:1 and Exodus 39:32 and Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 40:33.

Also: God blesses and hallows the Sabbath when He is done and Moses blesses the tabernacle (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 39:43; 40:9). Finally, both accounts end with a declaration that the Sabbath is holy (Genesis 2:2-4; Exodus 31:12-17). You’ll see the same patterns in 1 Kings 6-8 which describes the building of the Temple. King Solomon consecrates the Temple in the seventh month, on the seventh day of a seven-day feast, offering seven petitions – another not-so-subtle allusion to the creation story. As the Spirit “hovered” over the primordial waters, the Spirit of God fills Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8:10), as it also did when Moses consecrated the meeting tent (see Exodus 40:35).

In the Temple, it was the “sanctuary,” the “holy of holies” that was truly the dwelling place of God, the holiest of places. And in the creation account in Genesis, the Garden of Eden, where God placed the man and the woman, is described in terms similar to those used to describe the inner precincts of the Temple. The Garden was entered from the East, as was the Temple sanctuary. The cherubim posted by God at the entrance of the garden resemble whose posted in the sanctuary of Solomon’s temple (see Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18-22, 26-31; I Kings 6:23-29). God “walks” in the garden (Genesis 3:8) as He is said to dwell in the Temple sanctuary (see Leviticus 26:11-12; Deuteronomy 14:23; 2 Samuel 7:6-7).

Why do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 seem different?

The creation story is broken into two narratives. Genesis 1 refers to God as Elohim or “creator” and tells us how God brought the world into existence. Through the way the story is told, Genesis 1 shows us how the world was created as a kind of temple. We learn this through the words used and how the creation account is set up. This is certainly how the early Jews saw it. (See the third part of Lesson One in Genesis to Jesus, our online Bible study. You can find it here: In the Beginning : How A Catholic Starts to Read the Bible – III.)

In Genesis 2 we see God referred to as Yahweh, or “lord” and learn how he acted closely and personally, forming Adam out of the ground and placing him in the Garden of Eden. He also gave Adam priestly roles in the Garden of Eden as he was to “till” it and “keep” it, similar language that we see with the Levites later in the Pentateuch. (In other words, Adam was to work in the Garden as a priest, guarding and keeping it.) So, the Garden of Eden is seen as the sanctuary or “holy place” of the temple.

After Ham “saw the nakedness of his father” (Gen 9:22) why does Noah curse Canaan and not Ham?

Many scholars believe that Canaan is cursed by Noah because he is the offspring of the incestuous union between Ham and his mother. We see this referred to in Rabbinic writings, though Scripture itself doesn’t make it clear. Noah is “cursing” Canaan in a remedial way, not just to make thing hard on him. In other words, Noah is trying to help him be good. The name Canaan means “low” or “humbled” and this is what Noah is seeking from Canaan…the opposite of his father Ham who tried to usurp Noah’s authority and Shem’s birthright.

It can be confusing to look at Genesis 9:24 and view it in the manner described above because the verse makes it sound as if Noah places the curse right after he wakes up. However, one interpretation of the fact that he “awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him” is that the curse was made after it became apparent that his wife was impregnated by Ham. In other words, “knew” meant he understood the full ramifications of what had been done. Also, bear in mind that this was probably written by Moses much later and not right then. Moses knew what happened and so wrote it without a long gap in-between verses 24 and 25.

For more information on this question see our online Bible study Genesis to Jesus. For even deeper study on this topic, see the Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan article written by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. John Bergsma.

Why did Noah take 7 pairs of clean animals? (What is a “clean” animal?)

Noah took seven pairs of clean animals on the ark because these were the animals acceptable for sacrifice. If he had only taken two of them and then later offered sacrifice with them, they would have then been extinct. Also, the whole flood narrative is filled with covenant imagery through use of the number seven. To swear a covenant oath is to literally “seven oneself” (“sheba” in Hebrew). So the author is pointing also to the covenant reality that is being established between God and humanity through Noah. It is a new creation story and the passage is rife with references back to the Creation Account.

For more information see our online Bible study Genesis to Jesus.

Who exactly is Melchizedek?

Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem (which became Jerusalem) who appears in Genesis 14 and blesses Abraham. He is the first person called a priest in Scripture. For more information on him and how he fits into salvation history, see this section of Lesson Three in Covenant Love: Introducing the Biblical Worldview.

Look at the Hebrews edition of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible for a good article on Melzhizedek as well.

Why was circumcision the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham?

First we must realize that just as covenants were common to other cultures, so circumcision was practiced by other peoples before God had Abraham use it as a sign of the covenant. In fact, early Israelite readers would understand the relevance of Ishmael being circumcised when he was 13 years old because that was traditionally when it was done to Egyptian boys. This told the early Israelites that Ishmael, the son of Abraham’s Egyptian concubine Hagar, was not the child of God’s promise to Abraham. Circumcising their boys on the 8th day was something that set the Israelites apart from the other nations.

Another thing to realize is that circumcision was a “mixed blessing”, so to speak. Yes, it was a sign that God had covenanted with Abraham and that was good. But take a look at the sacrificial system that God set up with the Israelites as a sign of the covenant after the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32. God set it up that way to remind the Israelites how they had failed by worshiping those animals. They now had to sacrifice those same false gods. Abraham’s case was similar. He had to be circumcised as a reminder of how he messed up by jumping the gun with Hagar. He didn’t wait on God and tried to take matters into his own hands. So, circumcision was a painful reminder of the type of sin he committed and a reminder to trust in God.

Covenants were ratified by a sacrifice in ancient times. As part of this, oftentimes an animal would be “cut off from the herd” never to return, and its head and other members would be severed as part of the sacrificial ritual. This symbolized what would happen to a covenant-breaker. It also ratified the covenant. Given the method of “cutting off” the animal from its herd and its subsequent dismemberment, covenant ratification became commonly referred to as “cutting a covenant”. Circumcision took this to another level in that a circumcised Israelite who broke the curse would be cut off by God and actually bore a mark symbolizing what would happen to him. This was truly “cutting a covenant.” So circumcision marked the entrance into the covenant community and it symbolized what would happen to you if you broke the covenant.

Why is Deuteronomy a “lower law” and how come the Israelites can do things that go against God’s commands under it?

Deuteronomy is basically a lower law for the laity to live by under the authority of the Levites and it was given by Moses. It was the Levites job to enforce Deuteronomy. It is a lower law because what had essentially happened at Beth-Peor was that the Israelites as a nation had been permanently laicized by God. (Read about Beth-Peor here.) Remember, they were supposed to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. The fall at Mt. Sinai had temporarily laicized them but God had enacted a plan by which they could redeem themselves. However, as seen at Beth-Peor their hearts remained hard and so were demoted permanently.

It is very important to note that the laws given in Deuteronomy were not promulgated directly by God. Rather, they come from Moses. God allowed it. It is what we call “accommodation”. In other words, through Moses God allowed things in the Deuteronomic law that were previously forbidden because the Israelites were completely unable to keep it. Moses makes concessions to the inability of the people to be obedient. For example, as part of this “lower law”, Moses allows divorce. This broke the primordial covenant of marriage established by God. Moses allowed a lesser evil of divorce and remarriage because the evil Israelites were engaging in a worse evil. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas points out that it appeared that since divorce and remarriage had been outlawed, older Israelite men were killing their wives so as to be free to remarry. We see in Matthew 19:8-9Jesus tells the Jews that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Israelites heart.

Another example is that Israelites were not allowed to marry Canaanites, but Moses was afraid they would do so anyway given their history. So, he allowed Herem (genocidal) warfare (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

He figured the only way to save Israel from themselves was to wipe out the temptation by wiping out the Canaanites in the Promised Land. (The Canaanites knew they weren’t supposed to be there and so the warfare the Israelites were about to unleash on them was the curse of the law the Canaanites had broken by occupying the land that was basically the inheritance of Shem and promised to the descendents of Abraham. The Canaanites were descendents of Ham.) They were a terribly evil people.

Basically, Moses knew that Israel wasn’t ready to be a nation of priests in the service of God, so Deuteronomy gave them laws that made them like the rest of the nations. The prophet Ezekiel wrote regarding God, “I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life.” (Ez. 20:25) These new laws didn’t teach Israel to be holy, rather they acknowledged the fact that Israel was bound to fail.

In Deuteronomy 28 Moses gives the curses that will happen when Israel breaks the Deuteronomic law. Note he doesn’t say “if” they broke the law, but “when” they broke it. He knew they couldn’t even abide by this “lower law”. One of the curses will be exile…they will lose the Promised Land. (This is fulfilled later in the Old Testament with the Babylonian captivity.) In Deuteronomy 30 he tells them that when they disobey and they suffer the curses (culminating in slavery) they will cry out to God and he will circumcise their heart and deliver Israel (Deut. 30:6). In other words, Israel didn’t yet realize that they needed to be saved by a new covenant…that they were bound to fail under what had been prescribed. They needed to want to server the Lord…that is, have a circumcised heart, not just a physical circumcision.

A key thing to recognize is that the Mosaic covenant in Deuteronomy, the one still being practiced by the Jews at the time of Christ’s birth, was programmed to be replaced by a new covenant. All the rituals, sacrifice, circumcision, etc… was planned to be replaced by Christ in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant we would see a new kingdom of Priests…a new Israel…namely, the Church.

For more on this topic see Lesson Four of our online Bible study called “Covenant Love: Introducing a Biblical Worldview“.

How did Moses know he was a Hebrew?

Presumably Moses knew he was a Hebrew for different reasons. For one, he probably looked like one. Pharaoh’s daughter knows he’s a Hebrew (Ex 2:6) when she pulls him out of the water. She sends him to be nursed by a Hebrew…his own mother. There is a lapse of time here as Moses’ mother nursed him. She had him until he was weaned. After the child grew (Ex 2:10) she brought him back to Pharaoh’s daughter. Moses must have known that he had been rescued out of the water because his very name meant “Because I drew him out of the water” (2:10) Also, the reason Moses intervened in the fight between the Egyptian and the Hebrew is probably because the Hebrew was being abused. That’s why he killed the Egyptian. If he thought he was Egyptian, why would he care that a Hebrew was being abused?

One last point…Moses is traditionally held to be the author of the first five books of the Bible. So when he says “…and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people” he is telling us that he knew it was one of his people.

Why did God allow the Levites to slay 3000 Israelites after the Golden Calf incident?

The seeming brutality of the Old Testament is often hard for moderns like us to understand. In order to fully understand what is going on, you have to have a full understanding of the meaning of covenants and the seriousness of the oaths that make them. For background information see Lesson One of our online study Covenant Love: Introducing the Biblical Worldview or read chapter one of A Father Who Keeps His Promises by Dr. Scott Hahn. This is also something that is discussed more in the Bible and the Mass study. But let’s examine it a little ourselves as well.

If all of the killing seems harsh, remember that Israel had voluntarily placed itself under an oath to do God’s will, under the curse of death, and had become accountable. For holding God in contempt they had to be punished. Not only would it confuse them (like your own children who are threatened with consequences only to disobey and not be punished) as Galatians 6:7 says “Do not be deceived, God will not be mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Covenants are life and death.

What is important to realize here is that God was indeed acting as a loving Father by binding himself to such a wicked people and constantly giving them remedial punishment but never abandoning them. God is perfectly holy and he cannot bear wickedness. Though he lovingly bound himself to the Israelites, there were consequences if they broke the covenant. Look at Exodus 19 and see how serious this passage is about not letting the people get too close to God as his Presence rested upon the mountain. His holiness would kill them if they weren’t ritually purified. The Israelites were rightly terrified because they witnessed the power and awesomeness of God. They sent Moses in their stead because they were so scared.

Continuing in Exodus we see that after Moses receives the ordinances from the Lord, he recites them to the Israelites and they agree to abide by them. He then makes a sacrifice and sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice on the altar and then on the people. This sacrificed animal represents what would happen to the people (and to God) if they broke the covenant oath they had just sworn. The Israelites knew full well that the penalty for breaking the covenant was death. The sacrificial animal represented this. Regardless, after Moses has been gone up the mountain for 40 days and nights they forget their covenant and engage in obscene idolatry with the Golden Calf. It was “obscene” because they didn’t just bow down and worship it. The phrase “rose up and played” from Ex 32 is a euphemism for sexual orgy. They engaged in terrible sin right after not only witnessing the terrible holiness of God, but swearing a life and death oath to abide by God’s covenantal law.

As a result, there had to be consequences for them breaking the oath (just as there would be blessings if they obeyed it). In one sense it was awful that the Levites had to kill 3000 of their fellow Israelites. In another sense it was very merciful. If no one had risen up to the call of Moses so as to satisfy God’s justice all of Israel would have been wiped out. The action of the Levites saved Israel. This is why they were rewarded with the responsibility of the priesthood. (Note that the 3000 Israelites who died at Sinai were typologically restored, in a sense, at Pentecost. Remember how many people came into the Church that day when Peter and the Disciples preached in Jerusalem? 3000.)

How come David could act like a priest and Saul was punished for doing so?

The short answer is that David is a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:13-14). On the other hand, Saul didn’t share David’s concern for right worship or God’s commandments.

The first big example of this, a mistake which helped lead to Saul’s demise, is recorded in 1 Samuel 13, when he was set with a rag-tag army to fight the powerful Philistines. He was supposed to wait for Samuel who was to come in 7 days to offer sacrifice for the Israelites before they went into battle. They had no hope of victory without the help of the Lord and everyone knew it. Samuel failed to show on the 7th day and Saul wouldn’t wait any longer. He went ahead and offered the sacrifice which he thought was required in the circumstance. Shortly thereafter Samuel shows up and declares, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord you God, which he commanded you; for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. But now your kingdom shall not continue; the Lord sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” (1 Samuel 13:13-14)

The reason Saul’s sacrifice was not accepted was that it was offered to get something from God, that is, victory over the Philistines. Saul wasn’t offering a sacrifice because of his love for God. Instead he was seeking to get something from God and he thought this was the way to do it.

Saul later fails again to listen to the command of the Lord and keeps the booty from a battle with the Amalekites, another of Israel’s bitter enemies (probably descended from Esau). Through Samuel, God had told Saul to destroy it all (Read 1 Samuel 15:1-35).

As a result of Saul’s failures, God sends Samuel to anoint his new choice, the son of man from Bethlehem (Jesse) named David of the tribe of Judah. David is a man after God’s own heart and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily.