Intro to biblical times

(Note: for this assignment I was supposed to take several evemts from the OT and show how they played out in the later history of Israel and then give a theological interpretation. this paper has received the lowest score of any paper I've written. For sone reason I can't get the footnotes to post correctly. I'm sorry about that.)

PART ONE Genesis 1:2,6-9 - God Divides the Waters
The Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep. God divided the waters and set bounds for the seas. God commands and the waters obey. We will see this motif repeated in Exodus.
God divides the Red Sea . In this instance we see not only God’s power over water but in the mention of the wind (Grk: pneuma / Heb: ruach / Eng: spirit or breath or wind) dividing the waters of the Red Sea we see a small-scale reenactment of Gen. 1:2,6-9)
The motif is seen again Joshua 3 where God stops the flow of the Jordan River, thus dividing the waters upstream from those downstream. Though there is no Spirit/Wind mentioned, God is still present; He is sitting on his throne between the cherubim of the Ark. And it is in Joshua 3 that God is for the first time declared to be "Lord of all the Earth" .
What is the main point of God controlling water? The point is that God is the Lord of all the Earth. There is nothing mightier than Him, not even the primal life sustaining and life taking force of water.
I am aware of the water serpent myths of the ancient near east, and that many scholars look to those myths (especially the Ba’al myth and the Enuma Elish) to shed light on the Bible. There are many sections of the Old Testament, and even the New Testament that use these sea-monster myths as cultural touch-points. For instance, several places in the Old Testament mention that God has crushed the head of the sea-serpent and has set the boundaries of the earth . But I think some scholars have gone to far and see the influence of these primordial combat myths in texts where they are not. For example, Cross writes:
"As a matter of fact, the earliest sources (principally the Song of Marian in Exodus 15) do not equate the crossing of the Red Sea with the killing of the Dragon by the Divine Warior, but it is highly likely that the role of the sea in the Exodus story was singled out and stressed because of the ubiquitis motif of the cosmogonic battle between the creator god and the Sea in West Semitic mythology."

He might as well say, "The text doesn’t say it, and there really isn’t any evidence for it, but the song in Exodus 15 is only important because it reflects the local pagan mythology". Scholars such as Cross seem to misunderstand that like Jesus’ use of agrarian motifs to explain the Kingdom of God, the references to pagan mythology are merely a tool of communication. The kingdom of God is not derived from 1st century horticultural practices. Neither is the ubiqity of sea-serpent myths in the ancient near-east sufficient reason to suppose Miriam’s song or the song’s location in the narrative, are derived from or "stressed" because of the myths.
We see these last two divisions of water (e.g. the Red Sea and the Jordan) celebrated in Psalm 114/113. With mocking joy the Psalmist sings: "What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back?" The whole Psalm is nothing but exultation in God being the "Lord of all the Earth". There is nothing greater than God.
But God is not content to be "Lord of all the Earth" without using that Lordship to good ends. His love for humanity is very practical. We see this in Jesus’ command over water. In turning the water to wine He shows us that He cares for our happiness .
At His baptism He made the water able to the wash away our sins . In calming the Sea of Galilee and saving the lives of His Disciples he shows us that he cares about our physical safety. Our emotions (indicating our souls), our spirits, and our bodies: our entire persons are shown to be of interest to God, by his control of water.

PART TWO Genesis 6:17-18 -Noah and Abstinence from Sex
Traditional Jewish commentators look at the order of entrance into the ark (Noah and his sons followed by Noah’s wife and his sons’ wives) as an indication that God expected Noah and his family to abstain from sexual relations during the flood.
We can see abstinence from sex in times of crisis throughout the history of Israel. For example, Uriah the Hittitie refused to have sex with his wife while the army of Israel was at war. And though the Biblical text establishing the Yom Kippur does not mention it, abstaining from sex is a traditional part of the 25-hour fast for that holy day. Why did these men abstain from sexual relations with their wives? The Prophet Noah, it seems was following an explicit command from God. But the Bible contains no such command that would cause Uriah and those observing Yom Kippur to abstain from sex.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 can shed light on this situation. We read there, that the Prophet King David and his small army were fleeing for their lives and came to Nob where the Tabernacle was then located. David wanted to feed his men but the high priest only had hallowed bread for the priests. When the priest learned that David and his men had not had sex for three days he gave them the bread. It would seem that holy warriors who are properly prepared (e.g. have abstained from sex) attain, at least in part, the same status as the Aaronic priesthood. They shed their ordinary profane reality and attain a sacred reality.
So here is the answer. When dealing with matters of physical life and death (i.e. war or the Flood) or spiritual life and death (i.e. Yom Kippur and, in the Christian context, Lent) sex is seen as something to be avoided. Furthermore, fasting from sex during holy war makes one more acceptable to God.

PART THREE Genesis 14:1-24 - Abram and Melchezedik
Leaving aside the fact that this chapter tells of what must have been an awesome spectacle: A war involving nine kings, the looting of cities, the kidnapping of Abram’s nephew, a night-time attack by 318 commandos, and armies of giants (It almost sounds like a script for a Hollywood movie!) there are several very important things to learn from this chapter. In fact, the importance of this story in the Old Testament narrative can not be overstated. In addition to being "the only chapter in the Book of Genesis that connects a patriarch with great historic events that bring him out onto the international stage" it establishes the paradigm by which the people of God, whether ancient Israelite or modern Christian, should relate to wealth, political power, and war.
Wealth: Abram turned down wealth offered by the king of the wicked Sodomites. He will not be made rich by an evil man.
War: Abram did not go to war for glory, power, honor, riches, nor for any other thing; he fought only for the sake of his love for his kinsman, Lot. But in rescuing Lot he saves an entire city.
Political Power: Though the king of Sodom owed Abram his city, Abram refused to demand the kingship for himself, or even ingratiate himself with the king of Sodom.
Fokkelman describes Abram’s other-worldly focus: "…he does not want to be involved because his destiny is of a completely different nature."
I do not know if the poet and hieromartyr St. Dal-lan For-gaill of Ireland had this story in mind when he wrote "Be Thou My Vision" but ever since I heard a particular sermon on this text I hear his words every time I think of Abraham:
"Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art."

There is no question that another poet, the Prophet King David had this story in mind when he wrote Psalm 110/109 . He even says the Messiah will be a priest after the order of Melchzedick. And so it is here that we must discuss Melchezedik . Why? Because Melchezedik cuts through all of the politics, cuts through the personalities, cuts through all of the stuff the world thinks is important and goes directly to what God thinks is important.
In the narrative of this chapter there is only one brief moment of conversation, indeed it could be argued that the whole point of the war is to set the stage for this conversation. After the war two kings come to the Valley of Saveh to meet with Abram. One is the king of Sodom. The other is Melchezedik (king of righteousness or righteous king), the king of Salem (peace) which is the city we know as Jerusalem, but he is not just a king, he is a priest. And not just a priest of any old local deity, but of "The Most High God".
So, what happens? Worship happens. When they talk they do not speak of war or politics. No. Melchezedik comes with a sacrifice of bread and wine , and blessings for both God and Abram.
While this worship is going on the king of Sodom is forced to wait. But eventually he tires of waiting and interjects his offer of the spoils to Abram. Notice that he does not offer thanks , merely an offer of spoils. But this isn’t an act of gratitude. We can see that from the words used: "Give me the people, you take the goods". And that is all. He is in a hurry and wants this business to be over with. But Abram not only declines the offer, he makes sure the Sodomite king understands that it is for spiritual reasons that he declines the settlement - he has sworn an oath before God. There will be no dirty money in Abram’s treasury.
One of the points of this story is the contrast between what the world sees as important and what is a key events (the meeting of Abram and Melchezedick, and the introduction of bread and wine as sacrifice) in the history of salvation. Kingdoms and empires are mere tools in God’s hands. This motif will be repeated many times through the Old Testament. For example, the nation of Moab was used as a scourge by God . Likewise, the Babylonian invasion and the exile of Judah happened not because Nebuchadnezzar wanted to expand his empire but because God was punishing Judah for the sins of Manasseh . And eventually, many centuries after this war of nine kings recorded in Genesis 14, God will cause the Roman Empire to unknowingly get a Virgin to Bethlehem in time for the Son to be born.



PART FOUR Genesis 3:21 – The Origin of Animal Sacrifice

I’ve noticed that Genesis records people making sacrifices to God long before God offers any instructions regarding sacrifices. In fact, as we know from the account of Cain and Able , God accepts and rejects (with horrible consequences) sacrifices before there is any record of God giving instructions for how to offer sacrifices. So, let me make an educated guess. Commenting on Genesis 3:21, St. Ephraim the Syrian wrote:
"One may suppose that the first parents, touching their waists with their hands found that they were clothed with garments made of animal skins-killed, it may be, before their very eyes, so that they [e.g. Adam and Eve]…in their [e.g. the animals] very death might see the death of their [e.g. Adam and Eve] own body."

I think that all animal sacrifices in all human societies are ultimately derived from what God did in Genesis 3:21 . Our race knows instinctively that we need to make sacrifices to appease God/gods, or perhaps, as Carl Jung might have said, there is a collective consciousness that we are naked and need to be covered with another’s skin.
We can see the development of animal sacrifice through the Old Testament. Not very long after the event of Genesis 3:21, Cain and Righteous Able offered sacrifices . When the Prophet Noah entered the Ark he took two of every animal, except of clean animals he took seven . Clean for what purpose? I assume that since no one had been given permission to eat animals before the flood, that when God gave instructions for sacrifice he included a lists of clean and unclean animals, that is fit and unfit for sacrifice. And when the Prophet Noah came out of the ark he built an altar and offered to God the clean animals and birds upon that altar .
There are a couple of important developments in the history of animal sacrifice that should be commented upon. When Abraham took his son Isaac to Mount Moriah to sacrifice him to God Abrham said, "God will provide himself a lamb" . Up until this moment it was assumed that men provided the sacrifice, but here we have Abraham speaking in faith that God will provide the sacrifice .
Exodous 24 records an awesome experience in the history of mankind. Moses built twelve altars at the foot of the mountain and had seventy men sacrifice bulls on the altars as "fellowship offerings". Then they went up the mountain and…
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank."

They ate and drank in the presence of God. They were not merely appeasing God by their sacrifices. They were in fellowship with God.
During Solomon’s reign, the sacrificial cult was officially centralized and located in the Temple, on Mount Moria , in Jerusalem, the same place where Abraham went to offer Isaac on an altar.
Prior to the writing of Psalm 51/50 by the Prophet King David, sacrifice was seen as the way for a man to be cleansed of his sins . But in this Psalm we find David begging God to purify him and forgive him his sins so that he will be able to offer sacrifices.
"Have mercy (Heb: chessed) on me… blot out my transgressions…wash… me… clean me… purge me… wash me… blot out all my iniquities… create in me a clean heart… deliver me from blood-guiltiness… For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. (vv. 1-14)

Then David says the most amazing thing:
"The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart… Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (vv. 17-19)

This idea that righteousness is required before an acceptable sacrifice can be offered is stated emphatically and unambiguously by the prophets…
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept [them]: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts…But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness [is] as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away therefore have I hewed [them] by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments [are as] the light [that] goeth forth. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Later in Jewish history this theme of righteousness being more important than sacrifice is taken up by the Jewish sages in the Talmud…
"R. Eleazar stated, Greater is he who performs tzedakah than [he who offers] all the sacrifices, for it is said, To do tzedek (justice), and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice."

We see the requirement of righteousness before sacrifice fulfilled by Christ, the blessed man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, who stands not in the way of sinners, who sits not in the seat of the scornful. We see the institution of animal sacrifice in Gen. 3:21 , and all of the sacrificial events at Moriah/Salem/Jerusalem as prophecies of Jesus passion, which took place on the same mountain though it was called Calvary and Golgotha. In the meal before God in Exodus 24 and in Melchezidick’s bread and wine we see a promise that we will eat not only with God but actually, truly eat the Son of God, the Lamb .




Exodus 14:21-29
Joshua 3
Psalm 99(Masoretic)/98(Septuagint):1
Joshua 3:11
Rev. 12:1-13:9 for example
Mary K. Wakeman, makes an argument for an "earth monster" as well as a sea monster in "The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmgonic Combat Myth" Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 88, Number 3 (September 1969), pages 313-320
Psalm 74/73:12-17, Psalm 89/88:10, Psalm 104/103:5-9, Job 26:8-13
Frank Cross in "Biblical Motifs", ed. Alexander Altman, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 1966) page 16, Cited in Wakeman, op. cit.
Judges 9:13
Ven. Alexander Schmemann, "Of Water & The Spirit" (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1974), page 41
Hayim Granot, "Noah and His Family Relations" in Jewish Bible Quarterly, Volume 28, Number 1, January-March, 2000 (Jewish Bible Society: Jerusalem, 2000), page 62
2 Samuel 11
Leviticus 23:26-32
"Yom Kippur" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. [Accessed March 19, 2006].
I have been told that the Babylonian Talmud contains an instruction to abstain from sex on Yom Kippur but I have not been able to verify this.
This is the first mention of war in the Bible.
Gen 14:15 Rephaim, Gen. 14:14 Rephaim and Emim
Julius Wellhausen (in Die Copmosition des Hexateuchs) contends that account of this war is fictitious and not historic, but Albright (in The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible) has proven him wrong. See Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, 1999), page 444-445
Sarna,Nahum M., Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1966), page 111. Cited by Brian Morgan in his sermon War, Wealth, and Worship, Catalog Number 1405 (Cupertino, California: Peninsula Bible Church, 2000)
St. Ambrose, "On Abraham" cited in "The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament Vol. 2, Genesis 12-50" (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002), page 23
J.P. Fokkelman, "Time and the Structure of the Abraham Story" an essay in "Oudtestamentische Studien Deel XXV" ed. Van der Woude, A.S. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989) page104
+ 598 by beheading, feast day Jan. 29
Ancient Irish: "Rob tu mo bhoile, a Com-di cri-de" English translation by Mary E. Byrne. Oddly, I’ve only heard this poem by an Orthodox Saint sung in Protestant churches.
Brian Morgan, op.cit.
Brian Morgan, op. cit. – Morgan says this is the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament.
Of course, in doing so we are wise remember and heed the admonition of Abba Copres of Scetis as recorded in the "Sayings of the Desert Fathers".
Brian Morgan, op. cit.
This is the first time in the Bible when someone is called a priest.
Both St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Augusine of Hippo teach that this was a sacrifice, that the notable feature of Melchezidick’s priesthood is that it is ordained for the offering of bread and wine. Thus, Jesus who instituted Holy Communion at the Last Supper is a priest "after the order of Melchezedick". See "The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament Vol. 2, Genesis 12-50" (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002), pages 26 & 27
This is a striking contrast to the blessing words of Melchezedick. As the Ven. Alexander Schmemann teaches in "For the Life of the World"(Crestview, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1973) it is only in blessing, (e.g. giving thanks/eucharist) that we fulfill our appointed role in creation. Here we perceive in the King of Sodom’s words that which lies at the heart of his city’s famous wickedness: Foul ingratitude.
Judges 3:12-14
2 Kings 24:1-4
Genesis 4:3-8
St. Ephraim’s explanation of Gen 3:21 seems much more sensible to me than does the more famous explanation by St. Gregory of Nyssa. It seems to me that St. Gregory’s explanation is bordering on gnosticism or Platonism.
Francis Schaffer, "True Spirituality" (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971) page 20. Of course, I know this puts me in disagreement with many scholars, such as Rene Girard (see "Violence and the Sacred" [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977]) and Walter Burkett (see "Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth" [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983]). Dealing specifically with sacrifice in the Bible, William Hallo argues in his essay "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult" (in "Ancient Israelite Religion", Miller, Hanson, MdBride eds. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] pages 3-13) that the domestication of animals lead to an uneasiness on the part of the people who raised them and killed them, and that turning slaughter into a religious activity eased the guilt feelings of ancient man. After pointing out the Sumerian and Akkadian myths relating how men were created to feed and care for the gods Hallo goes on to say that these myths are probably not the mythic foundations of animal sacrifice. Instead he relies very heavily on the myth of Luglabanda of Uruk (in Gen 3:3 Uruk is called Erech.) to prove his argument. Both in the Luglabanda myth and in Genesis the eating of animals is authorized by gods/God during a time of crisis when a human being (or in the case of Genesis, all humanity) would die unless animals were consumed.
I wonder, did they return to the gate of Eden and burn their offerings in the presence of the Cherubim?
Genesis 7:2
This is the first recorded instance of someone building an altar.
Genesis 8:20
Genesis 22:8
This is in contrast to those myths of ancient Sumer and Akkadia that speak of men offering food for the nourishment of gods.
Exodus 24:9-11
This is similar to the event of Abraham’s hospitality at of Mamre recorded in Genesis 18:1-8. Also compare to Deuteronomy 14:22-27 where Moses instructs Israel to eat the tithe in the presence of God.
2 Chronicles 3:1
In Job 42:8 we see Job (who might have lived before the time of Abraham) offering a sacrifice so that his friends’ sins will be forgiven.
Amos 5:21-27
Hosea 6:4-6
Sukkah 49b
Psalm 1
Especially when coupled with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15
"…and this image of the banquet remains, throughout the whole Bible, the central image of life. It is the Image of life at its beginning and also the image of life at its end, its fulfillment: ‘…that you eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.’"Ven. Alexander Schmemann, "For the Life of the World", (Crestview, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1973), page 11
Matthew 26:26
1 Corinthians 11:25
John 6

Bibliography


"Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, The: Old Testament Vol. 2, Genesis 12-50" (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002)

Burkett,Walter, "Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth" (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983)

Fokkelman, J.P. "Time and the Structure of the Abraham Story" (in "Oudtestamentische Studien, Deel XXV" ed. Van der Woude, A.S. (Leiden et al: E.J. Brill, 1989)

Girard,Rene "Violence and the Sacred" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977)

Granot, Hayim, "Noah and His Family Relations" in Jewish Bible Quarterly, Volume 28, Number 1, January-March, 2000 (Jewish Bible Society: Jerusalem, 2000)

Hallo,William, "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult" in "Ancient Israelite Religion", Miller, Hanson, MdBride eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987)

Morgan, Brian "War, Wealth, and Worship", Catalog Number 1405 (Cupertino, California: Peninsula Bible Church, 2000)

Schaffer, Francis, "True Spirituality" (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971)

Schmemann,Ven. Alexander, "For the Life of the World", (Crestview, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1973)

Schmemann,Ven. Alexander, "Of Water & The Spirit" (Crestview, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974)

Wakeman,Mary K., "The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmgonic Combat Myth" Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 88, Number 3 (September 1969)

"Yom Kippur" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. [Accessed March 19, 2006].

Movie reviews for Biblical Times course

Comparing Franco Zepharelli’s "Jesus of Nazareth" (1977), Norman Jewison’s "Jesus Christ Superstar" (1973) and Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), I think that "Jesus of Nazareth" was best at portraying 1st century life Judea and Galilee. Among the many historical details in this film I found the following particularly interesting.

a) The main characters walked past a woman grinding at a small, portable mill. This was very interesting to me. Many times I have read of Abimelech’s death at Thebez , and have wondered how something as large as a millstone came to be at the top of a tower, and how a woman could have lifted it. Until I saw this film, I thought all millstones were very large and massive. Now I see how small a millstone can be, and I understand better how a woman broke Abimelech’s skull with one. Furthermore, seeing the woman in the film grinding what was probably her daily food reminded me of the commandment not to take the upper or lower millstone as a pledge for payment ; to take a part of a millstone as a pledge would have jeopardized the borrower’s life.

b) I do not know how historically accurate it was when St. Mary was shown weaving in her home in Galilee, but weaving was not an uncommon activity , and we do know that she wove cloths for the Temple in Jerusalem . And at this place in the film (prior to the Annunciation), this weaving might have been a foreshadowing of the weaving together of Jesus body that would happen in her womb .
c) The fishing boats on the Sea of Galilee in the film appeared to a bit larger than the 1st Century boat found in the Sea of Galilee in 1986 . But they were fairly close in size the real boat.
d) The presence of Zealots (a noticeable minority) throughout Palestine
e) The professionalism of the Roman army
f) Pious Jewish men wearing long side-locks
g) Jesus being circumcised on the 8th day
h) Men and women standing in different parts of the synagogue

Both Jesus of Nazareth and Passion of the Christ showed fairly typical carpenter work for Nazareth. "Jesus of Nazareth" showed St. Joseph working as carpenter in a town made of mud and brick buildings . "The Passion of the Christ" showed Jesus making a tall modern table for a rich man. This isn’t unlikely since the wealthy Hellenistic cities of Tiberias and Sephoris were very near Nazareth .
Probably, the most emotionally moving scene in any of the three movies was the calling of St. Matthew in "Jesus of Nazareth". The scene placed Jesus at a dinner party at Matthew’s house, with Peter standing outside the door, amazed that Jesus has entered the house. (Peter and Matthew hate each other.) When Jesus is invited to eat and drink he says, "First let me tell you a story", and he goes on to tell the story of the Prodigal Son. The idea being that Matthew is the Prodigal and Peter is the Older Brother. But it wasn’t just heart-stirring, it contained several important historical details.
a) Matthew is shown as the kind of tax collector St. John the Forefunner had in mind when he was preaching. Like most Roman tax collectors, he was greedy and ruthless .
b) Pious Jews refused to enter Matthew’s house.
c) Matthew’s social circle included notorious sinners and prostitutes .

The treatment of Herod Antipas in "The Passion of the Christ" seemed odd. In the movie he seemed to be a drunken transvestite. It is hard for me to believe that Emperor Tiberius would tolerate that kind of behavior in one of his tetrarchs.
Likewise, "The Passion of the Christ" seemed very sympathetic to Pontius Pilate, making him seem like a man who didn’t like killing. It is as though Mel Gibson forgot that Pontius Pilate was a butcher who even profaned sacrifies when it served his political interests.

There was a strange inconsistency in "Passion of the Christ" that I have not been able to resolve. The cross carried by Jesus was the familiar "Latin" style cross consisting of stipe and patibulum. But the crosses carried by the two thieves were only patibulum.
There is one other historical detail concerning the crucifixion that needs to be dealt with. All the movies show the nails going through the top of the foot, in the area of the tarsal or metatarsal bones. However, the one example archaeologists in Palestine have found of a crucified man shows that the nails entered the foot through the heel, fixing the feet to the sides of the stipe, and not to the front of the stipe .

The most interesting thing about "The Passion of the Christ" is that it was not just a movie portraying part of the life of Jesus as told in the Gospels. Rather it was a theological statement. From the opening scene with its allusion to Genesis 3:15, to Jesus obviously being in command of all of the events surrounding His Passion, everything in the film spoke of the co-existence of the physical with the spiritual. The beatings and tortures were real, but so was Satan standing by mocking Jesus in a perversion of what the Church would later call the Icon of the Virgin of Tenderness. Jesus the man was real, but so was Jesus the Son of God, ordering all things for the salvation of the universe. And in something shocking, God’s last act at the Crucifixion was the shedding of a giant tear drop. It reminded me of the Stricherion of Vespers on on Holy Friday: "O Thou who dost endure all these things in Thy tender love, who hast saved all men from the curse, O long-suffering Lord, glory to Thee."

Up to this point I have not mentioned the third movie I watched for this assignment, "Jesus Christ Superstar". This very stylized musical was not very enlightening. There were only two things that stood out to me:
a) The constantly expressed desire of Judas Iscariot for Jesus to be a politico-military savior. Of course, a century later the Jews did get a messiah more to their liking: Simon ben Kosiba lead the Second Jewish Revolt.
b) The song "Don’t Know How to Love Him" sung by Mary Magdalene. Although the Gospels do not indicate that St. Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute, it is how she is portrayed in this movie. And being a former prostitute she is confused about how to love Jesus. Of course, we know from the Gospel according to St. Luke that she loved him by supporting him financially .

New Testament Summary - For Prof. Lauri Thuren

1. The Gospel of St. Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew nowhere names its author, however the ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church is that this Gospel was written by St. Matthew the Apostle. Also, this Gospel is traditionally associated, in the writings of the Fathers[i] and in Iconography[ii] with the Living Creature of Revelation 4 who is made in the likeness of a man. The reason for this association is that the Gospel reveals Jesus as the Son of Man. This Gospel makes a special case that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, and that Jesus is the heir of David and rightfully is the King of Israel, thus the geneology of chapter one that culminates in Jesus begins “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. According to both Papias[iii] and St. Iraneaus[iv] the book was originally written in the language of the Jews and was only translated into Greek later. Along with the Gospels of Ss. Luke and Mark, this Gospel is called synoptic[v]. Like the other three Gospels, the Gospel of St. Matthew contains an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Unlike any of the other Evangelists, only St. Matthew records the story of the Magi who visited and worshiped Jesus. And St. Matthew also includes much of Jesus teaching regarding the eschatological nature of the Church and the Kingdom of God as lived by Christians in this present age[vi].

2. The Gospel of St. Mark

In A.D. 62-63, when the Apostle Paul was taken to Rome in chains St. Mark was in Ephesus with St. Titus. St. Mark left Ephesus to join St. Paul in his suffering and it was in Rome that he wrote the shortest of the four Gospels[vii]. Dramatically different from St. Matthew’s Gospel, with its careful geneology that traces the ancestry of Jesus back to the Prophet King David is St. Marks blunt and short geneology: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...” The directness of this Gospel, as revealed in the use of such transition words as “immediately” and “straightway” make the reader feel St. Mark’s urgency. Like the Holy Prophet Jeremiah who likened the word of God in his heart to fire shut up in his bones[viii], St. Mark is burning up to tell us the Good News. He cannot wait. At the very beginning of his Gospel, St. Mark points back to the Holy Prophets of old. In looking back to the Prophets, St. Mark shows Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy. The prophetic character of this book is confirmed by the writings of the Fathers[ix]. This Gospel and its writer are associated with the Lion-headed Living Creature of Revelation chapter four[x]. This Gospel is one of the Synoptic Gospels.

3. The Gospel of St. Luke

The Gospel of St. Luke, like the Gospel of St. Mark, was written in Rome during the years A.D. 62-63 while the Evangelist was visiting St. Paul.[xi] However, the Church teaches that St. Luke relied on the memory of the Theotokos[xii] for his account of the Nativity of Jesus, and this Gospel contains the most detailed account of Jesus’ birth and childhood. This Gospel is the first of a two book set: The Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles, in which St. Luke tells the story of Jesus and the early years of the Church. In the Fathers[xiii] and in the Iconography[xiv] of the Orthodox Church this Gospel is associated with the Living Creature of Revelation 4 that resembled a bull, for Luke shows Jesus in his priestly nature. The Gospel of Luke is the last of the Synoptic Gospels.

4. The Gospel of St. John

St. John the Theologian wrote this Gospel on the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea. The time of the writing was near the end of the 1st Century, during the last years of reign of Titus Flavius Domitianus (Domitian)[xv]. The Church’s Iconography teaches that this Gospel was dictated to St. Prochorus[xvi], who accompanied St. John during his exile to Patmos. Although this Gospel was the last of the four to be written it is put first in most Orthodox Bibles and Gospel Books as it is the first read in Church’s lectionary beginning on Pascha. This Gospel is unlike the other three Gospels in that St. John seeks to explain what is going on[xvii]. For instance, all of the synoptic Gospels contain the story of Jesus’ last supper in the upper room with his twelve disciples but only the Gospel of St. John tells us what that event was about (6:26-58). The iconography of the Church, in addition to showing St. John dictating this Gospel to St. Prochorus also associates St. John and this Gospel with the eagle-like Living Creature of the fourth chapter of Revelation[xviii].

5. The Acts of the Apostles

Like the Gospel of Luke, this book is written by Luke the Evangelist and Apostle of the Seventy. It is addressed to Theophilus and deals with many important events in the life of the Church. It begins with the Ascension[xix] and Pentecost[xx] and continues through the first persecution[xxi] of the Church by the Jews, the first Martyr[xxii], the Conversion of St. Paul, the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, and the missionary journeys of St. Paul. The book ends with St. Paul under house arrest in Rome, continuing to teach and preach to all who would come hear him[xxiii]. This book is read aloud in Orthodox churches during Holy week, during the wake for a reposed priest and over the Tomb of Christ just before the start of the Paschal Liturgy.

6. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans

This letter was authored by St. Paul, probably sometime from A.D. 55 to A.D. 57[xxiv], when St. Paul was in Corinth, during his third missionary visit[xxv] to that city. The occasion for the writing of the epistle was St. Paul’s intention to visit Rome.[xxvi] A question that needs to be answered is who is St. Paul. In the first verse of the book St. Paul calls himself an Apostle but he was not one of the Twelve who were chosen by Jesus. He was not even one of the men who had been with Jesus from the beginning[xxvii]. Nevertheless, Paul was called by Jesus[xxviii], received by the Church[xxix] and set apart by the Holy Spirit[xxx] to be an Apostle. The Church has always numbered St. Paul among the Apostles[xxxi] and confirms his calling in her Iconography[xxxii]. The letter can be divided into major sections: Introduction (1:1-17), The guilt of the world (1:18 – 3:20), Salvation through faith in Jesus (3:21-5:21), Theosis by union[xxxiii] with Jesus’ death[xxxiv] and resurrection[xxxv] in baptism (6-8), Jewish unbelief (9-11), Living the Christian life (12:1-15:13), Conclusion (15:14-16:27). More than anything else in this letter, what strikes me is how it begins with St. Paul’s words expressing ardent desire to visit the church at Rome and ends with that same love being expressed again. In fact, at the end of the letter it seems he loves everyone in Rome and wants to send his greetings to each individually! All of the theology of salvation in this very long letter is fitted between these two expressions of love. Theology begins and ends with love, for God is love[xxxvi].

7. The First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians

Written by St. Paul in the mid 50’s[xxxvii] to this church that he founded[xxxviii], this letter is full of chastisement and scolding as well as encouragement and explanation of doctrine. The occasion for the writing of this Epistle is a letter St. Paul received from the church at Corinth[xxxix], asking certain specific questions about some problems they were experiencing. St. Paul took the opportunity to correct a general carnality in the Corinthian church. Although the most famous passage in this letter is the 13^th chapter, perhaps the most important part of the letter, at least as for correcting the disharmony in the church at Corinth, and the problems of the Church everywhere, is to be found in Chapter 10 where St. Paul reminds the Corinthian church and all Orthodox Christians that we are one in Christ because the Eucharist is one, and we partaking are joined together in Christ. The letter ends with a long explanation of the resurrection of the dead and a direction to collect money for the poor Christians in Jerusalem. It needs to be noted, because it gives rise to an issue in 2^nd Corinthians, that in this letter St. Paul judges a case of incest[xl] in the Corinthian church and has the guilty party cast out from the Church.

8. The Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians

In this very personal and candid letter, St. Paul finds it necessary to defend his authority over the Corinthian church, even more than he had to in his first letter to them. Revisiting the incest issue, St. Paul commands the church at Corinth to re-admit the repentant man[xli] whom he previously ordered to be cast out. He explains that this is for the good of the whole church (“lest Satan should get an advantage of us”) not just for the good of penitent man. There is a very lengthy part of the letter dealing with the collection for the poor in Jerusalem and Christian liberality with money, in general. He also describes being caught up to Paradise[xlii] fourteen years prior to the writing of this letter.

9. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Galatians

The occasion for the writing of this, the sternest and most angry of all St. Paul’s letters is the acceptance of the Church of Galatia of the teaching of the Judaizers. Paul begins the letter with a defense of his Apostolic calling[xliii] and then reminds the Galatians that he has already combated their heresy in no less a personage than the great Apostle Peter. From then he goes on to explain the Gospel and contrast it with the false gospel they were following. Throughout the letter St. Paul is uncompromising in his assertion that we are saved by God’s grace and can not earn salvation through ritual observance. If the message of this book can be summarized in just a few verses, it seems to me that the verses read during the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord would do the job best: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”[xliv] But St. Paul is also very practical. He gives us a measuring rod in Chapter 5 when he tells us that the Spirit bears fruit; by this list of Spiritual fruit we can judge our lives and repent of our sins.[xlv]

10. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians

Because of some peculiarities of this letter (e.g. some ancient manuscripts lacking the words “who are at Ephesus”, the lack of personal greetings such as in Romans), some people think that this book was not in fact written to the local church in Ephesus but was intended as a letter to the whole Church.[xlvi] The Orthodox praxis however maintains that this letter was indeed written by St. Paul to the Ephesian church[xlvii]. As Father Thomas Hopko has written[xlviii], “[St. Paul] uses many words in long sentences, overflowing with adjectives, in his effort to accomplish his task. Defying a neat outline, the main points of the message are clear.” The main points are these: Christians have a certain standing[xlix] due to God’s grace (1:3 – 3:21), and there is a certain way Christians are supposed to live their lives (4:1 – 6:20).

11. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Philippians

Like Ephesians and Colossians this letter was written from Rome when St. Paul was Nero’s prisoner[l]. It seems that in this letter we see St. Paul as he knows he is soon to die[li] and is looking back on his ministry. Remembering them with fondness, like a master potter remembers his best made vase, he is full of love for the Church at Philippi and calls them his “joy and crown”[lii]. An important thing to notice in the book is the reference to the bishops and deacons[liii], which affirms Orthodox ecclesiology. Worthy of special note is Philippians 2:5-11 which the Orthodox Church reads on the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. The letter can be outlined[liv] as follows: Introduction (1:1-7), Christian joy in spite of suffering (1:8-30), Christian joy in service (2:1-30), Christ the goal, faith, desire and hope of the Christian (3:1-21), Christ the Christians Strength (4:1-19), Conclusion (4:20-30)

12. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Colossians

If there is an overarching theme in this letter, it is the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ. Verses 15-23 of the first chapter leave no doubt concerning the nature of Jesus - his deity, his eternity, his power, all-encompassing being. And the reason for this being the theme of the letter is that St. Paul was combating the heresy of Gnosticism[lv]. Thus we find in the letter warnings against being deceived by “enticing words” (2:4), as well as statements that God really was incarnate (2:9) in Jesus, that Jesus created everything else (including the angelic powers) (1:16), and physically died (1:22). But most tellingly, St. Paul is unambiguous when he writes that the Colossian Christians are to “be filled with the knowledge[lvi] of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding (1:9)” and that in Jesus are “hid all wisdom and knowledge (2:9)”. If it is true that the Church in Colosse was coming under the influence of a Gnostic heresy, there could be no doubt what side of the issue St. Paul and the Orthodox Church are on: Christ is God in the flesh, the Gnostics are merely teachers of vain deceit. Again, as in all of St. Paul’s letters, this high theology is not separated from practical application. If Christ is whom St. Paul says he is and if Christ did the things St. Paul says he did, and if the Colossian Christians are participators in the deeds of Christ (3:1), if Christ is their life (3:4), then they should live Christ (3:2-4:6).

13. The First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians

Because both the first and second letters to the church at Thessalonica have so much in common with each other I will only give a brief outline of First Thessalonians here, reserving fuller discussion of the first epistle for my treatment of the second epistle.

Introduction (1:1), Thanksgiving (1:2-4), Thessalonica as the ideal church whose faith is life-transforming and contagious (1:5-10), St. Paul’s recounting of his ministry in Thessalonica (2:1-20), St. Paul’s on-going concern for the Church in Thessalonica (3:1-13), Instructions for living a Christian life (4:1-12), Concerning reposed Christians, the return of the Lord, and the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgement (4:13-5:11), final exhortations and conclusion (4:12-28)

14. The Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians

The two epistles to the church at Thessalonica are considered by most scholars to be the earliest New Testament documents, written sometime between A.D. 45[lvii] and A.D. 51[lviii]. In both the letters St. Paul deals with the second coming of the Lord and is trying to quiet the minds of the Thessalonians, who seem to be very agitated about Jesus’ return. In both letters he exhorts them to continue in good works despite persecutions, especially he commands them not to be idle thinking the Lord is going to return sometime in the next few days. In these epistles we are assured that when the Lord returns the dead will be raised, that those of us still living will join them in the air, that Jesus will return when not expected, that before the Lord returns there will be a great apostasy, that the antichrist[lix] will be revealed, and that the antichrist will be destroyed by Jesus’ word[lx] and light. In these Epistles are some of the clearest teachings on the hope of the Christian, and at Orthodox funerals 1^st Thessalonians 4:16-17 is chanted.

15. The First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to St. Timothy

St. Paul wrote three letters to bishops of the early Church: two to St. Timothy and one to St. Titus. All give instruction to the bishops for the improvement of their ministry. Because they are addressed to bishops the three epistles are called the Pastoral Epistles. First Timothy can be outlined as follows: Introduction (1:1-2), Warning about unorthodox belief and sinful lifestyle (1:3-11), St. Paul’s confession[lxi] and personal charge to St. Timothy (1:12-20), Instructions concerning the conduct of the liturgy[lxii] (2:1-15), The Qualifications for Bishops and Deacons[lxiii] (3:1-13), Encouragement to St. Timothy to continue as a good bishop, even if St. Paul is delayed (3:14-16), Prophecy of heresies to come (4:1-5), Specific instructions to St. Timothy regarding his ministry and the governance of the Church (4:6-6:19), Conclusion (6:20-21).

16. The First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to St. Timothy

In this second letter to St. Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus, St. Paul emphasizes clinging to the Holy Scriptures (3:14-15) and that Godly shepherds handle the Scriptures rightly(2:15). We also learn that it was St. Paul who ordained St. Timothy to the Episcopal office (1:6). A very interesting thing in this letter is the reference to the magicians Jannes and Jambres (3:8) who are not named in the Old Testament but whose names came down to St. Paul through Jewish oral tradition[lxiv].

17. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to St. Titus

This epistle reiterates some of what St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy. Among the things we learn from this letter are that St. Titus was the bishop of Crete(1:5), and that St. Paul expected him to travel around the island setting up parishes and ordaining more bishops and/or[lxv] priests(1:5-9). Also notable, but very typical of St. Paul is his binding of good works to theology: Sound doctrine should produce fruits of righteous behavior. (2:1-15)

18. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to St. Philemon

Addressed to Saints Philemon (bishop of Gaza in Phrygia), Apphia (St. Philimon’s wife), and Archippus, (all three were martyred in during Nero’s persecution.) this letter was written by St. Paul during his captivity in Rome. The occasion for the writing was the return of St. Philemon’s slave, St. Onesimus. Though couched in very kind words St. Paul makes clear that St. Philemon should have been in Rome but instead St. Onesimus was doing what St. Philemon should have been doing (v.13), that St. Philemon should forgive anything owed because St. Philemon owes his life to St. Paul (v.19). It is also interesting to see that both St. Mark and St. Luke were in Asia with St. Philemon when this letter was written. It is only speculation, but could these have been the friends St. Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 1:15 and 4:16; the friends who abandoned him at his trial? It is clear that these two letters were written about the same time. Both 2 Timothy and Philemon seem to have been written when St. Paul was old (Phil. v. 9) and near death (2 Timothy 4:6).

19. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews

Many people say this epistle was not written by St. Paul, and his authorship has been disputed continuously throughout the last 2,000 years. Tertullian said St. Barnabas wrote it. Martin Luther thought St. Apollos wrote it. Harnack suggested that St. Priscilla[lxvi] wrote it. Origen said, “Whoever wrote the epistle, God only knows for sure.” But all of these men, scholars though they were, were heretics, cut off from the life of the Spirit. We should not put too much faith in their work. There is a mention of the sacrifices being made in the Temple (10:11), which indicates that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70[lxvii], and then there is the personal reference to St. Timothy (13:25), the close associate of St. Paul. But that is about it as far as internal evidence for Pauline authorship is concerned. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church knows her own, and recognizes the voice of her dear Apostle Paul. Therefore when the Epistle is read in our Church the reader intones in voice clear and loud “The reading is from the Letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews.”

The message of the Hebrews is that Jesus is better; Jesus is better than the angels (1:4-14), better than Moses (3:1-6), better than Aaron (5:5-10, 7:1-8:5). Almost the whole letter is a series of contrasts between the good things of the Old Covenant and the better things of the New Covenant. Even the great saints of the Old Testament were lacking, waiting for us before they could be made perfect (11:40). As in all of St. Paul’s letters, the dogma is made alive in the praxis, and he gives practical instructions for living(12:11-13:19); this whole theme of the Christianity being better than Judaism is made concrete when St. Paul writes: “We have an altar, of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”(13:10) This Epistle is read during the Divine Liturgy during Great Lent. Also, the 11^th chapter of Hebrews is read on the Sunday before the Nativity of Jesus (The Sunday of the Holy Fathers), together with the genealogy of Jesus according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.

20. The Epistle of St. James the Brother of the Lord

This Epistle was written by St. James, son of St. Joseph the Betrothed, and first Bishop of Jerusalem sometime between A.D. 45 and A.D. 50[lxviii]. Many people, especially Protestants pose this letter in opposition to, or as a balance to St. Paul’s teaching on faith. However, as we have seen, St. Paul in every one of his letters teaches that the Christian must behave in a certain way, and that the deeds of men can prevent them from entering the Kingdom of God[lxix]. According to Fr. Thomas Hopko, St. James’ purpose in writing this letter is to “correct the false opinion that because Christians are freed from the ritual works of the Mosaic law through faith in Christ, they need not do any good works whatsoever and are not subject to any law at all.[lxx]” But St. James was not alone in trying to correct this problem: St Peter warned against misconstruing St. Paul’s teaching[lxxi], and St. Paul himself responded very dramatically[lxxii] to the misinterpretation of his teaching. In a verse that should make people relying on faith alone[lxxiii] shudder, St. James writes: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (2:14-24) The two, faith and works must exist together in the Christian. And the first work that faith should cause to come out of a Christian is care for the poor (1:27-2:9)[lxxiv]. But this letter is not just a message of works. It is a message of faith and works, as is the whole Bible. We are told to pray. Is that work of prayer worth anything with out faith? Certainly not. For St. James does not say that unbelieving prayer is effectual, rather he writes “and the prayer of faith shall save the sick” (5:15)[lxxv]. Control of the tongue is also shown to be of tremendous importance. In fact, St. James writes that the religion of someone who cannot control his tongue is a false religion (1:26).

21. The First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle

Although St. Paul says he is in Babylon when this letter was written (5:13) the Tradition of the Orthodox Church is that the letter was written from Rome.[lxxvi] The letter was addressed to the “sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithyhinia.” All of these places are in what is now called Turkey. The greater part of the letter deals with suffering and what suffering means to the Christian. This fits well with the theory that St. Peter wrote the letter to Jewish Christians[lxxvii] who had been exiled from Rome by Emperor Claudius[lxxviii]. But this main theme of suffering[lxxix] should not obstruct our view of other very important things in this letter. For instance, St. Peter writes (2:5) to these suffering Christians that they “as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” By participation in Christ we are lifted up and become what God intended when He created Adam[lxxx]. The Letter can be divided into several sections: Introduction (1:1-2), Christian behavior and hope during times of suffering in light of Jesus’ suffering (1:3-25), More specific instructions regarding behavior within the family and church (3:1-12), Being righteous for the sake of righteousness even in the face of persecution (3:13-17), Vicarious suffering of Jesus preached by the Holy Prophet Noah (3:18-22), Christian asceticism: Salvation through participation in Christ’s sufferings (4:1-19), Instructions to the clergy (5:1-9), Conlusion (5:10-14)

22. The Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle

It seems that St. Peter wrote this letter as his last testimony, his final exhortation (3:1-2) to the Church before his death, which Jesus reveled to him (1:14). In the letter our great arch-pastor makes sure we understand that he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ divinity (1:15-18) and then proceeds to warn us against false prophets and false teachers (2:1-22). These heretics will not escape judgement but the righteous wll be rescued from destruction (2:3-13). And what is the mark of these heretics? How are they known? They, like Balaam, love money more than truth. (2:15-16). St. Peter uses the heretics’ denial of the Second Coming of Jesus as the stepping of point for teaching about the Second Coming. (3:3-16). St. Peter concludes his Letter with a final warning to be vigilant and a benediction (3:17-18).

23. The First Epistle of St. John

This letter, indisputably written by St. John the Theologian[lxxxi], is one of the most intimate books in the Bible. It is almost ridiculously affectionate, to the point where only the Song of Solomon exceeds it in tenderness. But what is the cause of this tenderness? It is the love of a father for his little children. The Apostle John, being old and the last living of the Apostles, and seeing the church fully planted, and being so full of love from Christ and for the Church poured out his heart in a final admonition. Notable things in the letter include St. John’s insistence that God became a real material man (1:1-2), that we all sin but God is faithful and just to forgive sins committed by his children if they are confessed[lxxxii](1:9-10) because of Christ our advocate(2-1-2). St. John warns his “little children” not to love the world[lxxxiii] or to hate our brothers(2:7-17), warns against apostates (2:18-27), exhorts his “little Children to purity (2:28-3:3), contrasts his “little children” to the “children of the devil” (3:4-24), warns against heresy[lxxxiv] and heretics (4:1-6). There is one small part of the Epistle that is disputed: Chapter 5, verse 7. The verse appears in none of the earliest Greek manuscripts but St. Cyprian[lxxxv] alludes to the passage in the third century. Regardless of what scholars write, the Orthodox Church says it belongs in the letter and reads it aloud during the Divine Liturgy on Thursday of Meat Fare Week.

24. The Second Epistle of St. John

The opening line of this letter is unlike any other greeting to be found in the Bible. Is it addressed to an individual? Is it addressed to a local church? Is it addressed to the whole Church? Verse thirteen is the key to this question: The churches are pictured as great ladies, and the parishioners as children of these ladies. The letter can be summarized as follows: Greeting (Verses 1-3), St. John’s reiteration of the necessity of love (verses 4-6), a condemnation of Docetism[lxxxvi] (verses 7-11), and Conclusion (verses 12 –13).

25. The Third Epistle of St. John.

Nothing is known about the place or date of the writing of this Letter, however it is speculated that it was written by St. John at Ephesus[lxxxvii] after his return from exile on Patmos. Unlike the other Johanine letters, this is a personal letter to a man named Gaius. Nothing in the text tells us if Gaius was a layman or numbered among the clergy. I suppose it is possible that this Gaius is one and the same with St. Gaius of the Seventy. But I think this is not the case. Gaius was a common Roman name, and several Gaiuses from various places are mentioned in the New Testament[lxxxviii]. It seems to me that he is a layman of some wealth since St. John nowhere mentions St. Timothy (St. Timothy the predecessor of St. Gaius in the see of Ephesus), but encourages this Gaius to receive the traveling preachers (verses 5-6) and to support them financially (verses 7-8). But it is in the discussion of the wicked Diotrephes that we find the strongest indicator that Gaius is a layman. St. John says that he wrote to the church but “Diotrephes…receieveth us not.” What conclusion is to be made? Diotrephes, the wicked bishop abuses his power and does not receive St. John’s letter, therefore St. John writes to Gaius, who according to the description at the beginning of the letter (verse 3) is the opposite of the abusive Diatrephes. But who is Demetrius (verse 12) mentioned by St. Paul? Why is he mentioned? Is St. John telling Gaius that Demetrius should be the bishop? Is he the person bearing the letter to Gaius? We do not know. It seems that there was much St. John wanted to say to Gaius but did not want to put it in a letter. Instead, he would tell it to Gaius face to face at a later time. (verses 13-14). It is hard to know what to think of this letter. Unlike other letters, this one doesn’t deal with matters of theology, as that word is commonly understood. So I think we should ask, what does St. John want to accomplish? The answer to that question is that St. John wants Gaius prosper (verse 2). Then St. John shows Gaius two men, Diotrephes and Demetrius. Diatrephes is evil and Demetrius is good. St. John tells Gaius to follow Demetrius (verse 11) and, I think, prosper by so following him.

26. The Epistle of St. Jude

The Orthodox Church holds that the author of this letter is St. Jude the brother of the Lord[lxxxix], and son of St. Joseph the Betrothed, and the letter is read during the Divine Liturgy on Tuesday and Thursday of Cheese Fare Week. It main purpose is to encourage Christians to contend for the faith in the face of apostasy (verses 3-4) and false teachers (verses 8-19). Like St. Paul, who referred to Jannes and Jambres, St. Jude also references extra-biblical tradition when he refers to the prophecy of Enoch[xc]. This prophecy is the earliest prophecy of the Lords second coming and the last judgement. At the end of this book, which is very reminiscent of the Old Testament Apocalyptical literature, is a commendation wherein St. Jude puts us in the hands of Jesus, who is able to preserve us until the Day of Judgment, and present us to his Father with great joy.

27. The Book of Revelation

Also called the Apocalypse, this book was written by St. John the Theologian on the Isle of Patmos. The book opens with St. John serving the Divine Liturgy. He tells us he was in the Spirit. We do not know if this means he was in an ecstatic state, but he definitely seems to have had his spiritual eyes opened again, as when he was with Jesus, St. Peter, and St. James on Mt. Tabor. What seems to have happened is that while he was serving the Liturgy on earth he suddenly was aware of what was happening in the Liturgy in Heaven, even seeing Jesus on the altar among the seven lamps (1:12). I will not try to interpret this book, it is beyond me. I will simply point out a few things that I noticed when reading the book:

1. Jesus is described as “who is, and who was, and who is to come”. He is not described, as we might expect, as “who is, who was, and who shall be”. (1:8)
2. The sin of the Nicolaitans[xci], which was only “deeds” in Ephesus (2:6), had become such a part of life in Pergamum that it was called a “doctrine” (2:15)
3. The book is arranged in groups of seven: Seven churches (1:4 – 3:22); Seven seals (4:1-8:1); Seven trumpets (8:1- 11:19, but maybe everything to 14:20 should be included in the seven trumpets); Seven bowls of wrath (15:1-18:24).
4. There is symmetry between Genesis and Revelation. Each describes a paradise[xcii] having a river (Gen. 2:10 & Rev. 22:1), each has a tree of life (Gen. 2:9 & Rev. 22:2), God and man are together (Gen. 3:8, Rev. 22:3-4). But in each case, the circumstance in Revelation is better: The new paradise is set in a great walled and beautiful city, the river flows from the throne of God and is full not just of water but the water of life, there is tree of life that doesn’t just prolong life (Gen. 3:22) but heals the nations, God doesn’t just visit the new paradise in the “cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8) but men will live and reign with God “forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5).

---

[i] The oldest record of this association between the Evangelists, the Gospels, and the Living Creatures of Rev. 4 is in St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ (ca. A.D. 120-202) book Adversus Haereses. I follow St. Iraneus’ assignments of living creatures to Gospels. St. Jerome assigned them differently.

[ii] See figure 1 in appendix

[iii] As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

[iv] In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

[v] Francis Gigot in the Catholic Encyclopedia (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV, Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company) writes: “The name given since Griesbach's time (about 1790) to the first three canonical Gospels. It is derived from the fact that these Gospels admit -- differently from the evangelical narrative of St. John, of being arranged and harmonized section by section, so as to allow the eye to realize at a glance (synopsis) the numerous passages which are common to them, and also the portions which are peculiar either to only two, or even to only one, of them.”

[vi] Matthew Chapters 24 &25.

[vii] http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=100019

[viii] Jeremiah 20:9

[ix] See note 1

[x] See figure 2 in appendix

[xi] http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=100020

[xii] Luke 2:19, 51

[xiii] See note 1

[xiv] See figure 3 in appendix

[xv] St. Nicolai Velimirovic, The Prologue of Ohrid (Vol. II: July to December), page 350, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America, Alhambra, California, USA, 2002.

[xvi] See figure 5 in appendix

[xvii] “It is said that after the death of the first three Evangelists, the three Gospels were brought to John while he yet lived that he might see them and judge if they had been composed according to the truth. When John saw them he fully accepted the grace of truth in them; and whatever the other Evangelists had omitted, he himself completed, and whatever they had touched on briefly, he elaborated in his own Gospel.” - Blessed Theophylact, The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Vol. I in the series: Bl. Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament), page 8, Chrysostom Press, House Springs, Missouri, U.S.A.

[xviii] See figure 4 in appendix

[xix] Acts 1:9

[xx] Acts 2

[xxi] Acts 5:17,8:1

[xxii] Acts 7:57-60

[xxiii] Acts 28:30-31

[xxiv] Oden, Thomas C. (General Editor), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Volume VI: Romans), page xvii, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S.A., 1998

[xxv] Compare Acts 20:2 and 2 Corinthians 13:1

[xxvi] Romans 1:11-12, 15

[xxvii] Acts 1:21-26

[xxviii] Acts 9:1-16

[xxix] Acts 9:17-18

[xxx] Acts 13:2

[xxxi] Schmemann, Alexander, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, page 20, Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1992

[xxxii] See figures 6 & 7 in appendix.

[xxxiii] “Paul does not say that we have been crucified but that we have been crucified with him…”, St. John Chrysostom, Homolies on Romans, in Phillip Schaff (editor), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. (2 series) , Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1994

[xxxiv] “To be baptized into the death of Christ is nothing else but to die to sin, just as he died in the flesh.” St. Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, 1.7.33 in R.J. Deferrari (editor), Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1947-.

[xxxv] “As we have died a death like his, so shall we also be conformed to his resurrection, because we shall live in Christ. It is true that the flesh shall come to life again, but still we shall live in another way, by dedicating our souls to him and being transformed into holiness and a kind of glorious life in the Holy Spirit.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, Explanation of the Letter to the Romans, in Oden, Thomas C. (General Editor), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Volume VI: Romans), page 157, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S.A., 1998

[xxxvi] 1 John 4:7-10

[xxxvii] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians), page 1232, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[xxxviii] Acts 18:1-11

[xxxix] 1 Corinthians 7:1

[xl] 1 Corinthians 5:1-8

[xli] 2 Corinthians 2:5-11

[xlii] In Homily XXVI on II Corinthians 12, St. John Chrysostom teaches us that St. Paul was caught up into Paradise so that he might not seem inferior to the other Holy Apostles.

[xliii]“It is to signify that he had not only been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the Spirit, that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him.” St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians, quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 969, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[xliv] Galatians 4:4-7

[xlv] “O tears which flow from divine enlightenment and open heaven itself and assure me of of divine consolation! …. Where there is abundance of tears, brethren, accompanied by true knowledge, there also shines the divine light. Where the light shines, there also all good gifts are bestowed and the seal of the Holy Spirit, from whom spring all the fruits of life, is implanted in the heart. Here also the fruit of gentleness is borne for Christ, as well as peace, mercy, compassion, kindness, goodness, faith, self-control.” St. Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses, quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 572, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[xlvi] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians), page 1272, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[xlvii] In the Divine Liturgy the reader always says “The reading is from the letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians” as he is about to begin reading.

[xlviii] http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=120

[xlix] “For here is the mystery indeed…those who are worth nothing [His Wisdom] has discovered a way of raising them to wealth and abundance. He who was an enemy, he who was hated, in a moment he is lifted up on high…And that it should be done by means of the Cross….When all were absolutely perishing, more fearfully than in the deluge, He devised this dispensation: by grace…” St. John Chrysostom, Homily I & II on Ephesians I, quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 369, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[l] “The letters of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are called the captivity epistles since they are held to have been written by the apostle from his house arrest in Rome around 60 A.D.” – Father Thomas Hopko at http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=120

[li] Philippians 1:20-21. Although in 1:24-26 he comforts the church at Philippi by saying he probably won’t die anytime soon.

[lii] Philippians 4:1

[liii] Philippians 1:1 is often used by Protestant polemicists to argue that the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church is created by man and not by God. They say that this verse is proof that monarchical episcopacy is an innovation. But that is not true. It is merely the case that the titles “bishop” “presbyter” and even “apostle” were still being used interchangeably in those days. St. John Crysostom says in Homily I on Philippians: “Were there several bishops in one city? Certainly not, but he called the presbyters so. For then they still interchanged titles, and the bishop was called a deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfill your ministry” when he was a bishop. For that he was a bishop appears by his saying “Lay hands hastily on no man” (1 Tim. 4:14) Yet presbyters would not have laid hands on a bishop…”(quoted in quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 408, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999)

And Theodoret says in his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles: “[Paul] yokes together bishops and deacons, making no mention of presbyters; certainly it was not possible that many bishops should be shepherds in one city, so it is clear that he calls the presbyters bishops. Indeed, in the same epistle he called the Blessed Epaphroditus their apostle….Clearly, therefore, Epaphroditus, since Paul gives him the title of apostle, has been entrusted with the Episcopal office. (quoted in quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 408, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999)

[liv] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to the Epistle to the Philippians), page 1280, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[lv] Ibid, page 1286

[lvi] “The knowledge which man has of God through union in truth and purity and love is real knowledge. It is not illusory or arbitrary, relative or subjective in the radical sense that it is imprisoned in the incommunicable interior of a totally isolated and insulated subject. It is mystical knowledge to be sure – religious, spiritual knowledge. But it is objective. It can be reflected upon, spoken about, shared, compared, communicated, discussed, witnessed. It is objective knowledge which can be criticized and judged, and which in turn can criticize and judge. And yet it is not merely knowledge about something about God, the truth or falsehood of which depends exclusively upon the acceptability of the fundamental data and logical validity of subsequent ratiocination but which nevertheless always remains locked within its dialectical, conceptual framework, never touching reality itself. The knowledge of God through direct contact with the divine reality itself is possible, and it is objectively possible to for all. This is the very heart of the Christian teaching and life.” Hopko, Thomas, All The Fullness of God, page 53, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1982

[lvii] Hopko, Thomas, http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=120

[lviii] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to theSecond Epistle to the Thessalonians), page 1294, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[lix] “But who is he? Is he Satan? By no means, but some man, who admits his fully working in him.” St. John Chrysostom, Homily III & IV on Thessalonians I & II, quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 518, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[lx] 2 Thess. 2:8, compare to Isa. 11:4 and Rev. 19:15

[lxi] Part of this confession (1:5) is incorporated into the pre-communion prayers in the Orthodox liturgies.

[lxii] It is interesting that St. Paul’s instructions seem only to have in mind the liturgy of the faithful. Nothing, except that women are not to teach, is said about what happens before the dismissal of the catechumens, e.g. the Scripture readings and the preaching.

[lxiii] These rules are part of the canonical regulations of the Orthodox Church. See Hopko, Thomas at http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=120

[lxiv] “According to rabbinical tradition they were the two chiefs of the magicians at the court of Pharaoh who foretold the birth of Moses, "the destroyer of the land of Egypt," thereby causing the cruel edicts of Pharaoh (Sotah 11a; Sanh. 106a). They said to Moses when he performed his miracles with the water and the rod: "Dost thou wish to introduce magic into Egypt, the native land of the magic art?" (Men. 85a). Kohler, Kauffman, article titled “Jannes and Jambres” on http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com , 2002

[lxv] See note 54

[lxvi] “Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form (p46), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on sytlistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as Clement of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been Barnabas, to whom Tertullian assigned the work; Apollos, defended by Luther and many moderns; Priscilla, suggested by von Harnack; Epaphras; and Silas. Arguments for none are decisive, and Origen's judgment that "God only knows" who composed the work is sound.” Attridge, Harold W., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, Page 97, Random House, 1992

[lxvii] “Within the broad range of the years 60-95 C.E., various conjectures have been made about a more precise dating. References to the Jewish sacrificial cult in the present tense (9:6-10; 10:1-4), along with the lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple, have been taken as evidence of a date prior to 70 C.E., when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. This argument, however, is inconclusive, since our author is not at all concerned with the Herodian temple. Rather, he deals with the desert tabernacle and argues exegetically from biblical data. Moreover, authors writing after 70 C.E., such as Josephus, Clement of Rome, and the compilers of the Mishnah, often refer to the temple as a present reality.” Ibid, page 97.

[lxviii] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to The Epistle to James), page 1327, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[lxix] “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”, St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

[lxx] Hopko, Thomas, http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=121

[lxxi] “And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”, St. Peter, 2 Peter 3:15-16

[lxxii] “And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”, St. Paul, Romans 3:8

[lxxiii] This is in contradiction to Martin Luther’s famous mistranslation of Romans 3:28 into which he introduced the word ‘alone’ - “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that." Cited in Stoddard, John, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, pages 136-137, TAN Books, Rockford, Illinois, U.S.A.

[lxxiv] “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 21:41-46

[lxxv] This passage is the first of the seven Epistle readings for the sacrament of Holy Unction: “Is any among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed” James 5:13-16

[lxxvi] a) Fr. Thomas Hopko has written, “the Tradition of the Church, however, maintains the testimony of the letters themselves, ascribing them to the foremost leader of Christ's apostles writing from "Babylon," which was the early Church's name for Rome…” (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=122) but there is divergent opinion regarding the calling of Rome by the name Babylon.

b) “The place of writing was doubtless Babylon on the Euphrates. It is most improbable that in the midst of writing matter-of-fact communications and salutations in a remarkably plain Epistle, the symbolical language of prophecy (namely, "Babylon" for Rome) should be used. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 3.1] states that there was a great multitude of Jews in the Chaldean Babylon; it is therefore likely that "the apostle of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:7,8) would at some time or other visit them. Some have maintained that the Babylon meant was in Egypt because Mark preached in and around Alexandria after Peter's death, and therefore it is likely he did so along with that apostle in the same region previously. But no mention elsewhere in Scripture is made of this Egyptian Babylon, but only of the Chaldean one. And though towards the close of Caligula's reign a persecution drove the Jews thence to Seleucia, and a plague five years after still further thinned their numbers, yet this does not preclude their return and multiplication during the twenty years that elapsed between the plague and the writing of the Epistle. Moreover, the order in which the countries are enumerated, from northeast to south and west, is such as would be adopted by one writing from the Oriental Babylon on the Euphrates, not from Egypt or Rome. Indeed, COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES, in the sixth century, understood the Babylon meant to be outside the Roman empire. Silvanus, Paul's companion, became subsequently Peter's, and was the carrier of this Epistle. Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "The First Epistle General of Peter." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 19 Feb 2000.

c) C.I. Scofield concurs with Jamieson, Fausset, and Brwon. (Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to The First Epistle of James), page 1332, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967).

d)David Guzik teaches that it could have been Babylon, Rome, or Jerusalem from whence St. Peter was writing. Guzik, David. "Study Guide for 1 Peter Chapter 5." Blue Letter Bible. 1 Mar 1996.

e) “… but most scholars seem quite agreed that he was using the term that was common in the Christians of that century to refer to Rome, because all of the licentiousness and idolatry and evil of Babylon had now been transferred to the capital of the Roman Empire. So it is very likely that the Apostle Peter wrote this letter from the city of Rome in about 67 A.D.”, Stedman, Ray. "The Message of 1 Peter." Discovery Publishing. Blue Letter Bible. 01 Mar 1996

f) “The critics who have denied Peter's sojourn at Rome must necessarily deny that the letter was written from there, but the great majority of critics, with all Christian antiquity, agree that it was written at Rome itself, designated by the metaphorical name Babylon (v, 13). This interpretation has been accepted from the most remote times, and indeed no other metaphor could so well describe the city of Rome, rich and luxurious as it was, and given over to the worship of false gods and every species of immorality. Both cities had caused trouble to the people of God, Babylon to the Jews, and Rome to the Christians. Moreover this metaphor was in use among the early Christians (cf. Apoc., xiv, 8; xvi, 19; xvii, 5; xviii, 2, 10, 21). Finally, tradition has not brought us the faintest memory of any sojourn of Peter at Babylon. The opinions of critics who deny the authenticity of the Epistle range from A.D. 80 to A.D. 160 as the date, but as there is not the slightest doubt of its authenticity they have no basis for their argument. Equally diverse opinions are found among the authors who admit the authenticity, ranging from the year A.D. 45 to that accepted as that of the death of Peter. The most probable opinion is that which places it about the end of the year 63 or the beginning of 64; and St. Peter having suffered martyrdom at Rome in 64 (67?) the Epistle could not be subsequent to that date; besides, it assumes that the persecution of Nero, which began about the end of 64, had not yet broken out (see above). On the other hand the author frequently alludes to the Epistle to the Ephesians, making use of its very words and expressions; consequently the Epistle could not be prior to 63, since the Epistle to the Ephesians was written at the end of Paul's first captivity at Rome (61-63).” Excerpt from article titled “Epistles of St. Peter” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[lxxvii] Galatians 2:9

[lxxviii] Acts 18:1-4

[lxxix] In contrast to many heretical preachers in North America, especially among the Pentecostals, St. Peter is forthright is saying the Christian is called to suffering: “But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps. He committed no sin; no guile was found on His lips. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten; but He trusted to Him Who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (2:20-25)

[lxxx] “The first basic definition of man is that he is a priest. He stands in the center of the world and unifies it in his act of blessing God, of both receiveing the world from God and offering it to God (Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee – Cf. Divine Liturgy)…Humanity is fully humanity when it is this response to God, becomes the movement of total self-giving and obedience to Him.” Schmemann, Alexander, For the Life of the World, page 16, St. Vladimir Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, USA, 1973

[lxxxi] Walter Drumm (transcribed by Ernie Stefanik) Article: Epistles of St. John in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight, Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[lxxxii] “Is Confession profitable or needful? Certainly it is profitable and even essential; because, just as it is impossible to cleanse the vessel without ridding it of all uncleanness, so it is impossible to purge your soul of sins without confession… It is necessary to reveal you sins properly and without any concealment. Some say, ‘For what reason should I reveal my sins to Him who knows all of our secrets?’ Certainly God knows all of our sins, but the Church, which has the power from God to forgive and absolve sins, cannot know them, and for this reason She cannot, without confession pronounce Her absolution.” Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow, Orthodox Life, Volume 38, Number 4 (July-August 1988), pages 20-22

[lxxxiii] “There are two loves: of the world, and of God: If love of the world inhabits, there is no way for the love of God to enter in…” St. Augustine of Hippo quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 680, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[lxxxiv] “But we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they (the Valentinians) oppose the tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles… This is nothing less than shameful blasphemy against their maker. What it comes to is that they will not agree with either Scripture or tradition…” St. Iranaeus of Lyons quoted in Johanna Manley, The Bible and the Holy Father’s For Orthodox, page 694, Monastery Books, Crestwood, New York, U.S.A., 1999

[lxxxv] For a lengthy discussion of this issue see: Walter Drumm (transcribed by Ernie Stefanik) Article: Epistles of St. John in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight, Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[lxxxvi] Docetism from the Greek "dokeo" (to seem, to appear), was the heresy that taught contra traditio et Scriptura that Jesus only appeared to be born in a human body and only seemed to die. The heresy was formally defeated in Christianity at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. However, it lingered on in Christianity (notably among the Cathars) until the end of the 1^st millennium. The evil doctrine still exists in Islam: "… They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them..." (Koran, 4:157)

[lxxxvii] Scofield, C.I. (Editor), The New Scofield Reference Bible (Introduction to The Third Epistle of John), page 1348, Oxford University Press, New York, U.S.A., 1967

[lxxxviii] From Corinth (Romans 16:23, 1 Cor. 1:14); from Macedonia (Acts 19:29); from Derbe (Acts 20:4-5)

[lxxxix] Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13

[xc] It is unknown if the Book of Enoch was written before the Epistle of St. Jude. It might be the case that both St. Jude and the anonymous author of Enoch were cognizant of the same oral tradition.

[xci]“ Irenaeus (Adv. haer., I, xxvi, 3; III, xi, 1) discusses them but adds nothing to the Apocalypse except that "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence."…. The common statement, that the Nicolaites held the antinomian heresy of Corinth , has not been proved.” P.J. Healy (transcribed by Fr. Rick Losch) Article: Nicolaitess in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI, Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight, Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

[xcii] The word Paradise of Persian origin and signifies a royal park or pleasure ground, usually walled.