Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399 Teaching Water Baptism as an Anointing for Christians in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

3.85. All those who are baptized in water receive a delightful perfume, whereas the One who baptizes, it is he who has the perfumed oil. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 193)

 

The One who baptizes is Christ, whose name, ܐܚܝܫܡ (the Syriac equivalent of Greek Χριστός, “the anointed one”), has the same root as ܐܚܫܡ, here employed for “oil” (cf. Greek χρῖσμα). This oil is perfumed, and from its perfume the baptized receive their own perfume. The oil is also referred to in KG 3.43. Origen too used the Christ-oil-anoint wordplay to indicate that all Christians are anointed by Christ with his perfumed oil. (Ibid., 193)

 

Mormonr/B H Roberts Foundation on "Book of Mormon Origins"

 New article from Mormonr/B H Roberts Foundation:

Book of Mormon Origins (click here for the primary sources)

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star (May 29, 1858) on John Taylor's "Polygamy Denials" in France

  

Elder Taylor's Discussion in Boulogne took place in the year 1850, seven years after the Prophet Joseph had received the Revelation on Celestial Marriage, but two years before that revelation was published to the Church. Elder Taylor, therefore, had no authority to preach polygamy. He neither preached it, contradicted it, condemned it, nor publicly denied it. His controversial opponents adverted to certain absurd stories about seraglios of “spiritual wives,” and sisterhoods of the “white vail” and “black vail,” and other lying reports propagated by the apostate Bennett fraternity and republished by Caswell. Our objector, in making his extract from the Report, gives forth the notion that the speaker was “stoutly denying polygamy, and stigmatizing it” as “indelicate, obscene, and disgusting.” But where the said stout denial is to be found, we know not. His own words are—“We are accused here of polygamy,” (referring to accusations made even before the doctrine of polygamy was revealed, and which were false accusations), “and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.” The idea of his “stigmatizing” polygamy as “indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,” is an interpretation of his words which is altogether gratuitous on the objector's part. We do not so understand them. Such a meaning as that attached to them by the objector could certainly never have been intended by their author.

Elder Taylor, instead of entering into a formal refutation of the charges cited by his opponents, which he considered as “too outrageous to admit of belief,” contented himself with simply reading a passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants on the existing marriage-law of the Church. As regards the Church being there spoken of as “reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy,” we would ask, In what light could such false charges have been considered but in that of reproach? Polygamy was not then a revealed doctrine of the Church; and therefore the Saints, as a matter of course, adhered to the general monogamic law. If they had practised polygamy without “command” from God, their conduct would have been in that respect, as censurable as that of the ancient Nephites. It would have been a “crime” on their part. But polygamy in itself is not a crime; nor does the Book of Doctrine and Covenants intimate that it is.

 

Our objector, in his extract given in “Mormonism Dissected,” makes a false quotation, which is an unfair act. The original is not “crimes of fornication and polygamy,” but “crime of fornication, and polygamy;” the word “crime” referring only to “fornication,” after which a comma is placed, but is left out by the objector in his extract. If, however, the plural word “crimes” was used, as the objector would have his readers believe, it would then refer, of course, to both “fornication” and “polygamy.” But it is not so. Nor, indeed, is the construction of the next sentence so favourable to the objector's purpose as he might wish. Even if the word “but” occurred before “one wife,” as it does before “one husband,” it would prove nothing against the principle of polygamy itself; for the Saints were then living under the monogamic law. The wording of the passage, however, is—“We believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband.” As far as punctuation is concerned, we may here observe that the commas after “polygamy,” in the Notice from the Times and Seasons and in Elder Taylor's remarks from the Report, and after “fornication,” in the passage from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, all prove adverse to the objector's argument. Although those commas are not really necessary, yet they aid in showing the import of the sentences where they are used. Their absence would neither be favourable to his position nor unfavourable to ours; but their presence is certainly fatal to his interpretation.

 

The extract from the Millennial Star Supplement of Dec. 31, 1853, taken from the Deseret News Extra of Sept. 14, 1852, simply shows that the Prophet Joseph, after having received the Revelation on Marriage, “had more wives than one.” This fact, we have neither inclination nor reason to deny. President Young, in making this statement, did not, of course, in any way “contradict and condemn” polygamy itself, nor “publicly deny” the fact of Joseph's having “believed and practised it.”

 

What, then, do our opponent's objections amount to? He invites “special attention” to the “facts” adduced, and pledges himself to “produce” the “books” quoted from, “when required.” We have given “special attention” to those “facts,” and have ourselves “produced” and made due reference to the “books” alluded to; and our conclusion is, that the objector's Dissection of “Mormonism,” instead of causing the honest observer or the Latter-day Saint to fear his knife, will cause him still more attentively to study the real “facts” of the case, as well as to more highly appreciate the value of the “books” which record them. (“Anti-Mormon Objections Answers,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 20, no. 22 [May 29, 1858]: 395-96)

 

 

Marcus A. Mininger (Reformed) Against the "False Convert" Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6

  

False convert

 

Other interpreters have sought to address the impossibility of repentance in Hebrews 6 by stating that those who fall away were not true Christians to begin with and so cannot return to repentance. Philip Hughes, for example, says: ‘the whole issue of this passage may be said to revolve around the question whether the internal reality, to which the external rite [of baptism] is designed to testify, is truly present or not.’ Accordingly, if a person truly apostatizes, then they must not have been truly regenerate to begin with and so cannot repent.

 

However, this ‘false convert’ interpretation, as it might be called, also has several problems. For one thing, it is not clear why, if an unregenerate person repented falsely before, it becomes impossible for him or her to return to Christ and repent truly afterwards.

 

. . .

 

In addition, it is important to note how the language of the passage focuses on the impossibility of a person being restored ‘again’ to repentance (6:6). In itself, this word ‘again’ implies that the second repentance under consideration in these verses (which the passage says is impossible) is actually of the same essential nature as the first repentance that the people in the passage had already experienced before. As Nicle puts it, the people being discussed in these verses had a first experience of repentance ‘which it would be essential to renew’ if they were to be saved. After all, ‘if the repentance that these apostates had experienced were not truly godly sorrow . . . it is hard to see why it would be desirable to renew it’ anyway. In principle, then, the issue at hand in the passage does not seem to lie in the deficiency of the first repentance as such (otherwise, why try to be renewed to it anyway?), but in the fact that, though the first repentance had great value and would in theory be desirable to repeat, it is nevertheless impossible under the circumstances described for that to happen. In other words, the key issue in these verses is not why repeating the same repentance as before is not even worthwhile since it was a false repentance anyway, but why repeating the same repentance as before, though desirable in theory, is still said to be impossible to do.

 

In addition, this critical weakness in the false-convert interpretation suggests that the problematic of Hebrews 6:4-6 are not adequately articulated through a controlling interpretive interest in theological topics such as divine election, inward regeneration, and true or false conversion, with which many scholars have been preoccupied. As important as those topics are in some biblical texts, it seems apparent that other interpretive categories need to be primary when reading this passage, given the details of its wording. More specifically, it is crucial for any interpretation of this passage to explain how a change in situation could come about for some people, from an original situation in which a repentance was experienced that was good and desirable in itself, to a new situation in which repentance of the same basic kind, while in theory still desirable, is also no longer possible or savingly efficacious. (Marcus A. Mininger, Impossible to be Restored? Temptation and Warning in the Epistle of Hebrews [New Studies in Biblical Theology 64; London: Apollos, 2025], 42-43, italics in original)

 

 

Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399: Teachings on the Neutrality of Infants in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

4.13. Those who have participated in flesh and blood are babies. Now, whoever is an infant is neither good nor evil. Therefore, it is well said that human beings are intermediaries between angels and demons. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 204)

 

This kephalaion is closely connected with KG 3.76, in which Evagrius has traced the development of the human soul from a vegetative level in the womb to an animal level in babyhood (which in the present kephalaion is represented by Heb 2:14), to the rational level in adulthood. There, he warned that the gift of the logos can be used by human beings in two opposite ways, either for the Good, if one follows virtue, or for evil, if one follows evilness. The former conduct elevates the human being to the rank of angels, and the latter degrades it to that of demons, an idea that here is repeated. Here, human beings are assimilated to babies, who are neither good nor evil, in the sense that they are neither completely good, as angels are, nor so evil as demons are. If humans were completely good, they would be angels, and if they were much worse than they are, they would be demons (I do not say, “if they were completely evil,” because demons themselves are not completely evil, since they are creatures of God—if they were completely evil, they would cease to exist). At other times, indeed, Evagrius speaks of an assimilation of humans to angels or to demons over the aeons, depending on their moral choices. (Ibid., 204)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) on the Energy-Essence Distinction and People "Seeing" God

  

We confess that the essence is entirely invisible and imparticipable, both to us and to all creation, as the Only-begotten said: No one has ever seen God (Jn 1:18), which is to say, as He is and at the level of His essence. Wherefore HE also said to Moses, No man shall see My face and live (Ex 33:20). Yet we believe that it is possible to see and to receive His glory, the brightness that is from the essence, and His grace and power. Of this order were the visions of the prophets, the revelations of light to the saints and the radiance within them, the ministries, and the working of miracles. For we all receive divine grace, not the essence. On the contrary, we believe that only that divine flesh that He assumed was hypostatically united to the Word, so that through it we might become communicants of the grace that is in that flesh that He assumed, since all the fullness of the Godhead is in Him bodily, since it dwells therein, as Paul says. In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9)—the Godhead and not the hypostasis of the Spirit. For the Word alone, who is one of the Trinity, was made flesh. And His humanity alone is a hypostasis of God and is identical to God, since it was supremely united to Him without division or confusion and became His own. Therefore we believe that we partake of the gift and grace of God that proceeds from Him and not of His essence, and the Messalians and impious Bogomils believe.

 

Witness to all this is the apostle who reclined on the divine breast, for which he received the abundant grace of theology. He by himself is a sufficient witness, since his testimony is true, and he knew that what he said is true, that we may believe, since he is a disciple of the Truth (Un 19:35). This disciple says concerning the divine essence that, No one has ever seen God (Jn 1:18). And he calls in as a witness the Lord, who says, The Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (Jn 1:18). On the other hand, he says concerning His grace, And we have seen His glory. And lest anyone should say that he spoke only about the Incarnation, he adds, Glory as the Only-begotten of the Father. And lest anyone should say that he meant the nature of the Godhead, he says again, full of grace and truth (Jn 1:14).

 

Do you see how the truth was clearly proclaimed by the Gospels? To show that the glory of God has been revealed to the saints, he himself, in the same Gospel, says about Isaiah, These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke concerning Him, that is, concerning Christ (Jn 12:41). The Savior Himself proclaimed the kingdom, power, and glory of the Father, which is common to the three Persons, since it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as well. On the one hand, He says in His prayer, For Yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, unto the ages. Amen (Mt 6:13). On the other hand, the Church proclaims that the kingdom, power, and glory is common to the three hypostases when he says, For Yours is the kingdom, and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit. And it does not simply says this, but it has learned it from the divine Scriptures. For the grace, glory, power, operation, and kingdom and proclaimed to be common to the Trinity.

 

Wherefore the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 18:2). These were established by the Word of the Lord, and by the Spirit of His mouth they were imbued with power (Ps 32:6). Heaven and earth are full of the glory of the thrice-holy God, as the angels theologize (Isa 6:3). On this account let those who deny the grace and radiance of God be turned back (Ps 34:4; 128:5). We, however, who have received from His fullness, who have received light from light and grace for grace: let us give thanks to Him that has bestowed His grace on us, shone on us, and prepared an eternal kingdom for us from the foundation of the world—a kingdom that we hope to attain by His mercy. Even here below, let us seek to be made worthy of a partial foretaste of this kingdom. IF we are purified, this will be given to us. So let us hasten to draw near to Him that is most pure. For this is what David declares, saying, Come unto Him and be illumined, and your faces shall not be ashamed (Ps 33:5). (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 32, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 127-29)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) on Baptismal Regeneration in "Against All Heresies"

  

The power and operation of God are in us, by His mercy, even here. For how is it that we are baptized? What did we receive in baptism? It was rebirth. Unless you are born again, it says (cf. Jn 3:5). We have put on Christ. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). But how have we put Him on, hypostatically or by grace? Obviously by grace! That is why He says, Both I and the Father will come and make our abode with him (cf. Jn 14:23). Yet the Father was not made flesh. Therefore He dwells in us by grace. The Son, however, was made flesh. Yet even if we commune of His flesh, we do not partake of the essence of the Godhead, but its grace. For we have received from the fullness of the Godhead of Him who is in the flesh. Similarly, we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit (and here I refer to those who have been ordained). He who is appointed to read is sealed, and, when he has received the grace, he attains the rank of a reader. For he is not able to perform the duties of a subdeacon. Likewise a deacon is not able to perform the duties of a presbyter, nor a presbyter, as we have said, those of the episcopal rank. (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 32, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 129)

 

Augustine on the Different Meanings of "Father" (e.g., Matthew 23:9; 1 Corinthians 4:15) During the Council of Carthage (411)

  

242. Augustine, bishop of the Catholic Church, said: “I have a source, but it is Christ, whose apostle I hear speaking: All are yours, but you are of Christ, Christ truly of God [1 Cor 3.22-23]. For even when the apostle said that he was a father, in order that we should not believe human infirmity to be the foundation, as it were, of his actual paternity, he added: I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. The seed, therefore, and the nature of my seed is drawn from the Gospel. For the sake of doing them honour we call those who have preceded us either in time or in merits ‘fathers’. It is an entirely different matter when we ask whom we have as a father in faith, whom we have as a father for eternal salvation, and whom we have as a father for the purpose of preserving the Church and obtaining the promises of God. It is a mark of honour that we say every day ‘father ‘ to older men; daily we say ‘brother’ even to some who are not with us in the one Church nor established in the same sacraments. Lot even called the residents of Sodom ‘brothers’, certainly to appease their enmity, not as a recognized brotherhood and a community of, as it were, a single inheritance. Let all of this, therefore, be put aside, let us instead distinguish between names which are due to men on the basis of honour and the name which we need for salvation. For eternal salvation, I would say by permission of the apostle, or rather, indeed, I would say the apostle’s command: The apostle is not my father for eternal salvation who says to me: I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave increase. And neither is he anything who plants, nor he who waters, but he who gives increase, God [1 Cor 3.6-7]. About this the Lord said: Do not call anyone on earth your father [Mt 23.9]. Just as he knew that the apostle would say: I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. Nor indeed would it contradict the Lord’s words, Do not call anyone on earth your father when the apostle said, you do not have many fathers, I bore you through the Gospel [1 Cor 4.15]. But because he drew a distinction between the purpose for which the Lord established a father for us, and the mark of honour by which we could accept the apostle as a father, for that reason he spoke in this manner, so his words would not be contrary to the Lord’s truth. In sum, whatever fathers I recognize on earth, I recognize them for the sake of doing them honour. I do not have any father for my own salvation except God, about whom the Lord said to me: Do not call anyone on earth your father, and to whom we daily prayer: Our father, who is in heaven [Mt 6.9].” (“Transcript of the 411 Conference: Day 3” (June 8, 411), in The Conference of Carthage in 411 [trans. Erika Hermanowicz and Neil McLynn; Translated Texts for Historians 90; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 279-80)

 

Conference of Carthage (411) Interpreting the "Psalms" in Luke 24:44 as a Reference to the Psalter, not the Entirty of the "Writings"

  

With these and many further attestations of the law and the prophets proving that the Church is spread throughout the whole world, the divine psalms also concur as follows: The Lord said to me: You are my son, today I bore you; ask it of me and I shall give to you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession [Ps 2.7-8]. Again in another psalm about Christ the Lord invoking Solomon figuratively: He will be Lord from sea to sea, and from the water all the way up to the borders of the ends of the earth. The Ethiopians will fall before him, and his enemies will eat the dust. The kings of Tharsis and their islands will offer presents, the kings of Arabia and Saba [Sheba and Seba] will bring gifts. And all the kings of the earth will adore him. All nations will serve him [Ps 71/72.8-11]. Again, in another psalm: God, the Lord of the gods, has spoken and called it earth from the rising of the sun all the way to its setting; out F Zion the appearance of her beauty [Ps 49/50.1-2].

 

It is for that reason the Lord Jesus himself also, who had spoken before through the mouths of the prophets, after he had risen from the dead, now promised the Church through his own mouth in these terms: It was necessary, he said, that all things which were written in the law, both the prophets and the psalms, be fulfilled through me. At that moment he awakened their perception, so they might understand the Scriptures, and he said to them: that it was written thus and therefore it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and penance and remission of sins for all the nations was to be preached in his name, with them beginning from Jerusalem, [Lk 24.44-47], just as if he was putting into different words that testimony of the psalm which we presented directly above. For what was put there: and he called it earth from the rising all the way to the setting of the sun [Ps 49/50.1] the Lord said here: through all the nations [Lk 24.27]. For who does not know that Zion and Jerusalem are one and the same city, where the passion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ began to be preached by a most dazzling proclamation across the world for cleansing and saving peoples? (“Transcript of the 411 Conference: Day 1” (June 1, 411), in The Conference of Carthage in 411 [trans. Erika Hermanowicz and Neil McLynn; Translated Texts for Historians 90; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2025], 89-90)

 

Symeon, Archbishop (EO) of Thessalonica (1380-1429) Against Roman Catholic Iconography and Statuary and Canons 82 and 100 of Quinisext

  

23. That We Should Depict the Things of God with Reverence and Piety and in Accordance with the Received Custom

 

What other innovations have been introduced by the Latins contrary to ecclesiastical tradition?

 

The holy and venerable icons were piously handed down for the honor of the divine prototypes and the relative worship of their holy images by the faithful, since they make the truth visible through representations. For icons portray the Word who was incarnate for our sakes, as well as the divine works that He accomplished for us: His Passion, miracles, and mysteries. They also portray the all-holy form of His holy ever-Virgin Mother, and of His saints, and all things whatsoever the Gospel account and the rest of the divine Scriptures speak about. Icons portray these things as with another kind of letters: teaching representationally, through the application of pigments and other materials.

 

Yet the Latins innovate in all these things, as we have said, and they often paint the sacred icons in another style, contrary to what has been established by the Church. In place of images and clothes and hair, they adorn their icons with human hair and real garments. This, however, is not an icon of hair and clothes but the hair and clothes of some random person, and thus it is not an icon and figure of the prototypes. They also paint their icons and adorn them in a manner that is outside the bounds of reverence, which actually contradicts what it means to be a holy icon, as the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council prescribes. For it states that one should not paint things that are not beneficial for the more simple; and what is contrary to the order of the Church is not permitted. (See Canons 82 and 100 of the Quinisext Council) Nor do the Fathers accept this. What is more, they also depict certain things in theatrical performances, contrary to the divine ordinances. For they act out, as it were, the events of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the crucifixion of the Savior, and all the rest, stationing men at the crossroads and in public squares contrary to the order of the Church. One man plays the Virgin, and they call this fellow ‘Mary.’ Another is called ‘angel’ and yet another ‘Ancient of Days.’ On this one they affix white hairs to his chin, since they do not have beards. For the Latins shave these off, like women and contrary to the ordinances of nature. Therefore, they put on someone else’s beard, thereby exposing the incongruity of their actions. For if the prophets saw that God is represented with a beard, then certainly when we have a beard it brings honor to our nature and is in accordance with God’s will. Thus those who shave act contrary to the will of God and dishonour nature, especially priests and monks, who are forbidden from indulging the flesh.

 

And they make the Ancient of Days hold a dove (an actual bird) in place of the divine Spirit, once again exposing the incongruity of their thinking thereby. For if they think that the Spirit is ‘also from the Son,’ they why do they not sit the Son beside the Ancient of Days, so that they can both send forth the dove? Rather, they should send the Son, too, to the fellow they call Mary. For it was not the Spirit who was incarnate, even if He did overshadow the Virgin (Lk 1:35). Nevertheless, all these things are absurd and alien to the tradition of the Church. Indeed, they are an outrage against the mysteries and Christian piety.

 

And what about the things they portray concerning the Crucifixion of Christ? Bringing in the blood of irrational animals in the bowels of animals, in place of the Lord’s blood, they make it appear to flow from the hands, feet, and side of some man who pretends to be crucified. Who, then, is this crucified man? And what is this blood? Is it the reality or is it an icon? If it is an icon, how is there a man and blood? For a man is not an icon. And if the man and blood are the reality, it is not an icon. And who, by the way, is this man? And what is that blood? One must ask: whose is it! Is it the Savior’s or is it some common blood? Oh the absurdity of it all! These things are contrary to the sacred icons and to the Gospels—indeed, to the dread mysteries of Christ!

 

And from whence they did receive these things? Which of the saints handed down such things to them? The truth is that they themselves invented all of them. And they perform them at crossroads, and in public squares, stationing actors there in contravention of all order. They put on plays about the wondrous things that are beyond description, of which it is not lawful to speak. They call a dove—a bird—the Holy Spirit. They call out and respond with the details of the feast. The fictitious Mary receives an irrational dove in place of the Spirit. Once again, as we have already said, some man is crucified, and they call him Christ. The Crucifixion is not real, and yet the blood of some animal is seen to flow, mocking the blood shed by God.

 

But it was not in this way that the Lord commanded us to commemorate the mysteries, but rather as He Himself handed down. For in the latter He Himself is also operative, and consecrates the mysteries. It is His body and bloody that are consecrated.

 

Are these things that they do not fraught with error—exceedingly fraught? IF you wish, O man, to depict these things and to teach them to other people, celebrate the Liturgy as the Lord handed down. Compose writings. Paint icons with pigments, as it has been handed down. For this is true representation, like the Scripture in books whose inner grace is divine, since they, too, are holy things made visible. Yet the Latins, having once gone astray, hasten to those things that must be avoided.

 

If, however, they should censure us concerning the ritual of the furnace of the three youths, they will not come away happy at all. For we do not light a furnace, but only candles with lights, and we offer incense to God as is customary. And we depict an angel; we do not send forth a man. We bring forward to sing only youths who are pure, as the three youths were, to chant the Ode of the three youths according to tradition. All youths who have been sealed with chrism and consecrated represent these three youths. Among the clergy each represents his own rank. The primate represents Christ, and the bishops represent the chief apostles, since they also possess their grace. The priests in turn represent the Seventy, and the deacons the Levites. The subdeacons and the remaining orders represent the order of the prophets.

 

Seen from another angel, the primate represents the incarnate God the Word. The priests represent the higher orders of angels, and the deacons the lower orders of ministering powers. The rest of the clergy represent the final orders together with the Orthodox laity. All of these have their successive rank, as well as the grace that corresponds to it. Therefore, it is not inappropriate for youths to portray the three youths since it is also possible for them to possess their grace. To portray the Lord in His crucifixion, however, to pretend at being slain, and to pour out blood, is to perform something that is neither real nor in accordance with divine tradition. Likewise, to portray the Mother of God, by means of a man or a woman, and to have her receive a bird in place of the Spirit is exceedingly inappropriate. And to portray the figures of the saints and adorn them with someone else’s hair and clothes, contrary to piety, is not something that was handed on by the Fathers. To put it simply, to perform the things of God on a stage and in theatrical performances is not Orthodox, is not traditional, and is not proper for Christians.

 

If, on the other hand, someone should assert that those who carry these things out are priests, and that, in this capacity, it is possible for them to depict the Lord and His Virgin Mother, it should be known that it is not proper for them to do it in this way. For priests represent the Lord in those things that are needful: in baptizing, in liturgizing, in washing the feet of others, and everything else the Lord spoke about, which He handed down to hierarchs and priests to perform. Likewise the chanters and those who have been sealed in order to read represent the Lord when they read and chant. There is no fictitious crucifixion and shedding of blood, let alone the blood of an animal, unless someone should choose to really shed his own blood in martyrdom, or undertake ascetical struggle in crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires, as Paul says (Gal 5:24). He also said that, The world is crucified to Me, and I to the world, admonishing everyone to seek after this (Gal 6:14).

 

No one, however, is able to replicate the Virgin Theotokos, neither in her purity nor in the way she conceived the Lord by the Spirit and gave birth to Him in the flesh, for this was absolutely unique and was accomplished to her alone. Yet one may imitate her by living chastely and embracing virginity, thereby showing himself to be worthy of receiving her grace to the extent that this is possible. In these ways, then, it is desirable for everyone to replace the Mother of God, as much as one can.

 

Yet if anyone says that all these things are the same as the divine icons that are painted, their sentiments are senseless. For what we see in a depiction is truly an icon: a painted icon of Christ, the depiction of blood, the Mother of God in icon form, or an angel, an apostle, a hierarch, a martyr, or the Spirit in the form of a dove. Everything is an icon, since they are images and depictions of divine things, worthy of veneration and reverence. Yet for people to act the things out is not appropriate. (Symeon of Thessalonica, Dialogue in Christ Against All Heresies 23, in Against All Heresies [trans. Alexander Pino; Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024], 82-86)

 

Here is the English and Greek of canons 82 and 100 of the Quinisext council (692 AD) and the interpretation thereof in The Rudder:

 

English	Greek
CANON LXXXII   In some of the paintings of the venerable icons, a lamb is inscribed as being shown or pointed at by the Precursor’s finger, which was taken to be a type of grace, suggesting beforehand through the law the true lamb to us Christ our God. Therefore, eagerly embracing the old types and the shadows as symbols of the truth and preindications handed down to the Church, we prefer the grace, and accept it as the truth in fulfillment of the Law. Since, therefore, that which is perfect even though it be but painted is imprinted in the faces of all, the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world Christ our God, with respect to His human character, we decree that henceforth He shall be inscribed even in the icons instead of the ancient lamb: through Him being enabled to comprehend the reason for the humiliation of the God Logos, and in memory of His life in the flesh and of His passion and of His soterial death being led by the hand, as it were, and of the redemption of the world which thence accrues.   Interpretation   Since some painters paint Christ as a sheep and lamb, with the Forerunner pointing his finger at him and saying, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that hereafter in the future this shall not be done, but instead Christ Himself shall be painted a full-grown man, with respect to His human character, in order that by means of the human aspect we may be enabled to recall to memory His life in the flesh and His passion and His death, and the salvation of the world resulting therefrom. For, as regarding those old types of the Law, we honor and value them, out of consideration for the fact that they prefigured the truth of the Gospel and of grace, among which one was that of the lamb slaughtered on the occasion of the Passover (or Easter), taken in the image of Christ, the true Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. But now that this truth and the realities themselves have come, we prefer it and accept it rather than the types.	ΚΑΝΩΝ ΠΒʹ   Ἔν τισι τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων γραφαῖς, ἀμνὸς δακτύλῳ τοῦ Προδρόμου δεικνύμενος ἐγχαράττεται, ὃς εἰς τύπον παρελήφθη τῆς χάριτος, τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἡμῖν διὰ νόμου προϋποφαίνων ἀμνὸν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν. Τοὺς οὖν παλαιοὺς τύπους, καὶ τὰς σκιὰς. ὡς τῆς ἀληθείας σύμβολά τε, καὶ προχαράγματα, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδεδομένους κατασπαζόμενοι, τὴν χάριν προτιμῶμεν, καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς πλήρωμα νόμου, ταύτην ὑποδεξάμενοι. Ὡς ἂν οὖν τὸ τέλειον κᾂν ταῖς χρωματουργίαις, ἐν ταῖς ἁπάντων ὄψεσιν ὑπογράφηται, τὸν τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ἀμνοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, χαρακτῆρα, καὶ ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, ἀντὶ τοῦ παλαιοῦ ἀμνοῦ, ἀναστηλοῦσθαι ὁρίζομεν. Διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ταπεινώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατανοοῦντες, καὶ πρὸς μνήμην τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας, τοῦ τε πάθους αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου θανάτου, χειραγωγούμενοι, καὶ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν γενομένης τῷ Κόσμῳ ἀπολυτρώσεως.   Ἑρμηνεία   Ἐπειδὴ μερικοὶ ζωγραφίζουσι, τὸν μὲν Χριστὸν, ὡς πρόβατον καὶ Ἀμνὸν, τὸν δὲ Πρόδρομον δεικνύοντα αὐτὸν μὲ τὸν δάκτυλόν του καὶ λέγοντα· «Ἴδε ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ Κόσμου.» [Ἰωάν. ά. 29.] Διὰ τοῦτο προστάζει ὁ παρὼν Κανὼν, τὸ τοιοῦτον εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς νὰ μὴ γίνεται, ἀλλὰ νὰ ζωγραφίζεται ὁ Χριστὸς, ὡς ἄνθρωπος τέλειος, κατὰ τὸν ἀνθρωπινον χαρακτῆρα. Ἴνα διὰ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου εἴδους ἐρχόμεθα εἰς ἐνθύμησιν τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ πολιτείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ πάθους καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, καὶ τῆς διὰ τούτων γενομένης σωτηρίας τοῦ Κόσμου. Διότι, τοὺς μὲν παλαιοὺς ἐκείνους τοῦ νόμου τύπους τιμῶμεν, καθʼ ὅ ἐπροεικόνιζαν τὴν ἄλήθειαν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῆς χάριτος, ἀπὸ τοὺς ὁποίους ἔνας ἦτο καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ Πάσχᾳ σφαγιαζόμενος Ἀμνὸς, εἰς εἰκόνα Χριστοῦ παραλαμβανόμενος, τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Ἀμνοῦ, τοῦ αἴροντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ Κόσμου. Τώρα δὲ ὁποῦ ἦλθεν ἡ ἀλήθεια αὐτὴ καὶ τὰ πράγματα, μᾶλλον τῶν τύπων προτιμῶμεν αὐτὴν καὶ ὑποδεχόμεθα.
CANON C   “Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence” (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensation of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.   (No interpretation of this Canon is in the Greek edition.)   Concord   Inasmuch as some men were wont to paint or draw on walls and boards lascivious pictures, such as women stark naked or bathing or being kissed by men, and other such shameful scenes, which deceive the eyes of beholders and excite the mind and heart to carnal desires, therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that no such pictures shall by any means whatsoever be painted or drawn or sketched. If anyone should make any such pictures, let him be excommunicated, since all the five senses of the body, and especially the first and royalest one, the eyesight, is easily led to impress the pictures of those things which it sees into the soul. That is why Solomon recommends that our eyes look aright at things that are fine and good and beautiful, and that everyone of us keep his mind and heart away from the shameful objects of the senses.	ΚΑΝΩΝ Ρʹ   «Οἱ ὁφθαλμοί σου ὁρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν, καὶ πάσῃ φυλακῇ τήρει σὴν καρδίαν,» [Παροιμ, δʹ. 23. 25.] ἡ σοφία διακελεύεται. Ῥᾳδίως γὰρ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν αἰ τοῦ σώματος αἰσθήσεις εἰσκρίνουσι. Τὰς οὖν τῂν ὅρασιν καταγοητευούσας γραφὰς, εἴτε ἑν πίναξιν, εἵτε ἄλλως πως ἀνατεθειμένας, καὶ τὸν νοῦν διαφθειρούσας, καὶ κινούσας πρὸς τὰς τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἡδονῶν ὑπεκκαύσεις, οὑδαμῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οἱῳδήποτε τρόπῳ προστάσσομεν ἐγχαράττεσθαι, εἱ δέ τις τοῦτο πράττειν ἐπιχειρήσοι, ἀφοριζέσθω.   Συμφωνία   Ἐπειδὴ μερικοὶ ἐζωγράφιζον εἰς τοίχους καὶ σανίδας ζωγραφίας τινὰς ἀσέμνους, οἶον, γυναῖκας γυμνὰς, ἢ λουομένας, ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν φιλουμένας, καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα αἰσχρὰ, τὰ ὁποῖα ἀπατῶσι τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῶν ὁρώντων, καὶ κινοῦσι τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν πρὸς ἐπιθυμίας σαρκικὰς, διὰ τοῦτο προστάζει ὁ παρὼν κανὼν, αἱ τοιαῦται εἰκόνες μὲ κᾀνένα τρόπον νὰ μὴ ζωγραφίζωνται, εἰ δέ τις ἤθελε τἁς ζωγραφίσῃ, νὰ ἀφορίζεται, ἐπειδὴ ὅλαι αἱ πέντε αἰσθήσεις τοῦ σώματος, καὶ μάλιστα ἡ πρώτη καὶ βασιλικωτάτη ὅρασις μὲ εὐκολίαν ἐμβάζει τὰς εἰκόνας ἐκείνων ὁποῦ βλέπει μέσα εἰς τὴν ψυχήν. Διʼ ὃ καὶ ὁ Σολομὼν συμβουλεύει νὰ βλέπουσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ καθʼ ἑνὸς ὀρθὰ καὶ καλὰ πράγματα, καὶ καθʼ ἔνας νὰ φυλάττῃ μὲ κάθε φύλαξιν τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν καρδίαν του ἀπὸ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ἀντικείμενα τῶν αἰσθήσεων.

 

 Further Reading:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

 

Did Farmers Find Millions of Book of Mormon Arrowheads in New York?

 

Did Farmers Find Millions of Book of Mormon Arrowheads in New York?

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 108: Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony

 

Episode 108:  Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony

What do Mormons really believe about Mother Mary w/ Robert Boylan

 

What do Mormons really believe about Mother Mary w/ Robert Boylan

Evagrius (Origenist) 345-399: Teachings on Demons in Kephalaia Gnostika

  

1.21. Goods and evil, those which are considered to be without necessity, some of them are found inside the soul, and others among them outside it. But those which are said to be evils by nature, it is impossible that they come into existence outside it. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 22)

 

Evil by nature, in its proper sense, is sin, which can originate and be found only in a soul, since it is the product of one’s wrong will. In its proper sense, evil does not even exist outside the soul’s wrong choices, and therefore it is considered by Origen and Evagrius to have no ontological subsistence. (Ibid., 22)

 

 

5.18. Demons only resemble colors, shapes, and size, whereas the holy powers also can [lit. “know”] change the nature of the (immortal) body, while they prepare it for the functions that are necessary. And this occurs among composite beings, whereas of the incorporeal nature there are no intellections like these, as has been said. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 261)

 

Guillaumont has proposed here an emendation (185): to read ܘܦܠܚܬܫܡܠ instead of ܘܦܠܚܫܡܠ and to understand, “savent se transformer aussi en la nature,” “they also can transform themselves into the nature,” which is closer to the nonexpurgated version S1. Now, I think that Guillaumont’s emendation is possible but unnecessary: angels alter and transform their own immortal and spiritual bodies (which indeed here are called gwšm’) into the bodies they need to assume, even changing the nature of their bodies, for instance, into diastematic bodies, and not simply transforming their qualities (color, shape, size), as demons do. Both Dysinger and Fr. Theophanes are right not to follow the emendation and to render, respectively: “the holy powers also know how to transform the nature of the body” and “the holy powers know (how) to transform also the nature of the body.”

 

Both demons and angels are composite beings, corporeal in their (immortal) bodies and incorporeal in their nous. Incorporeal realities, like noes and Ideas, do not admit of intellections concerning bodies and transformations of bodies and of bodily qualities. (Ibid., 261)

 

 

6.69. Angels see human beings and demons; human beings, on the contrary, are deprived of the sight of angels and demons, while demons see only human beings. (Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac [trans. Ilaria L. E. Ramelli; Writings from the Greco-Roman World 38; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015], 358)

 

Humans cannot see either angels or demons, because they live in a sense-perceptible and mortal body, while angels and demons live in bodies that are immortal and not sense perceptible (even though the spiritual bodies of angels are very different from the “ridiculous” and “dark” bodies of demons). This is also why angels, conversely, are said to be able to see both humans and demons, and why demons—who obviously rank lower than angels—can see humans. Indeed, in KG 1.22 Evagrius has declared that the bodies of demons have a color and a shape—so they are less spiritual than the bodies of angels—but they escape our sense perception, in that their quality is not similar to the quality of the bodies that fall under our senses. So, whenever they want to appear to humans, they turn themselves into a resemblance of a human body, without showing us their own bodies. Demons, however, as Evagrius declares in the present kephalaion, cannot see angels, arguably because the bodies of angels are subtler than their own. The bodies of demons are not fleshly, but they are different from the spiritual and luminous bodies of angels: as Origen maintains, they are such as to arouse the angels’ laughter. Evagrius, in fact, deemed the bodies of angels fiery (ethereal), those of humans earthy, and those of demons pneumatic. See Stewart, “Imageless Prayer,” 176. See KG 1.22 and the relevant commentary. (Ibid., 358-59)

 

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli: Justin Martyr (2nd century) and Calcidius (Platonist and Probably a Christian; 4th century) Teaching Creation Ex Materia

  

Interestingly, although he was probably a Christian, Calcidius did not embrace creatio ex nihilo, but, like the Christian Platonist Justin Martyr, postulated the pre-existence of uncreated matter. According to Calcidius, the first principles are God, matter (silva), and the ideas (exempla/exemplaria). God is Plato’s Good, transcendent, superior to intelligence, and ineffable. Intellect/Nous, identified with Providence, is ‘the second God’, proceeding from the first God; the cosmic Soul is the second Intellect, which proceeds from the first Intellect. Fate depends on Providence and does not compromise the free will of rational creatures. This was also maintained by the Christian ‘Middle Platonist’ Bardaisan, as well as Origen, whose writings Calcidius knew, and who was the champion of the compatibility of Providence and free will; Origen impacted Gregory of Nyssa, on the basis of Plato’s theodicy tenet, ‘God is not responsible’ for evil. (Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “’Revelation’ for Christians and Pagans and Its Philosophical Allegoresis: Intersections within Imperial Platonism,” in Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity, ed. Elsa Giovanna Simonetti and Claire Hall [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023], 63)

 

James P. Ware on Isaiah 56:6-7

  

The priestly character of the gentiles’ offerings is prominent in Hebrew Isaiah 56:6–7. The term used for their ministry in 56:6 is שׁרת , the regular word in the Hebrew Bible for the service of the priests and Levites. The same word is used in Isaiah 61:6, where it is rendered in the LXX by λειτουργός: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἱερεῖς κυρίου κληθήσεσθε, λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ, “but you will be called priests of the Lord, ministers of God” (61:6). With only one exception, the Hebrew verb שׁרת is consistently translated in the LXX by the Greek verb λειτουργέω and its cognates, which as we have seen throughout the Bible, when used in the context of worship, always connote priestly or sacerdotal functions.

 

The priestly character of the service of the gentiles in Isaiah 56:6–7 is also evident in all ancient Greek translations – except the LXX. Unlike the other ancient Greek versions, the priestly function of the gentiles is obscured in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 56:6, which renders שׁרת as δουλεύω rather than λειτουργέω. The reason for this, as scholars are widely agreed, was the Septuagint Isaiah translator’s discomfort with the passage’s depiction of gentiles as exercising Levitical functions. Only once among its many occurrences in the Old Testament is the Hebrew verb שׁרת translated in the LXX with δουλεύω rather than λειτουργέω or its cognates – here in LXX Isaiah 56:6! Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, by contrast, all translate שׁרת in Isaiah 56:6 with λειτουργέω. This is significant, for it suggests that Isaiah 56:6–7 may underlie not only Philippians 4:18, but also the larger theme of the Philippians’ sacrifice developed throughout the letter. For if, as we know he does elsewhere (e. g. 1 Cor 15:54), Paul is here utilizing a Greek text of Isaiah stemming from the “proto-Theodotion” recension, it is likely that Isaiah 56:6–7 is the source, not only of Paul’s language of “an acceptable sacrifice” (θυσία δεκτή) in Philippians 4:18, but also of Paul’s characterization of the Philippians’ labor for the gospel as a “priestly ministry” (λειτουργία and its cognates) throughout the letter (2:17; 2:25: 2:30). (James P. Ware, “The Servants of the Servant in Isaiah and Philippians,” in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity, ed. Jacob Stromberg and Michael A. Lyons [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 554; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021], 263-64)

 

 

Holly J. Carey on Allusions to Isaiah 52-53 in Wisdom of Solomon 1-6

  

Allusions to Isa 52-53 in Wis 2 and 5

 

The emphasis on the unjust actions of the wicked against the righteous man in Wis 2 and 5 provide a natural connection to the similar experiences of the Servant in Isa 52–53. It is in these sections where we find the highest concentration of allusions to the fourth Servant Song, even though verbal agreement is rare. The following is a list of potential allusions to Isa 52–53 in Wis 2 and 5, followed by some brief observations on recurring patterns and emphases.

 

1. Wis 2:12 (Isa 53:11): both figures are called the “righteous one” (δίκαιος).

2. Wis 2:13 (Isa 52:13): both figures who suffer at the hands of enemies are described as

πᾶις (of God).

3. Wis 2:14 (Isa 53:2): the πᾶις is described as one whose appearance is repulsive – his

oppressors do not even want to look at him.

4. Wis 2:16 (Isa 52:13; 53:11): the πᾶις is accused by the wicked of claiming God as his

father, emphasizing the relationship between the righteous man and God over against

that of his adversaries.

5. Wis 2:19–20 (Isa 53:7–9): the righteous man’s defining characteristics of gentleness

and patience are challenged by his enemies, as he is given a shameful death.

6. Wis 2:21 (Isa 53:4): the reasoning (λογίζομαι) of his enemies against him is determined

faulty.

7. Wis 2:21 (Isa 53:6): those who oppose God’s Servant/righteous man have “gone

astray” (ἐπλανήθησαν).

8. Wis 5:1 (Isa 52:13): the Servant’s/righteous man’s lowly position will not last forever.

He will be lifted up (Isaiah) and stand in the presence of his enemies (Wisdom).

9. Wis 5:1 (Isa 53:4): the one exalted was the same one who was abused by his enemies.

10. Wis 5:2 (Isa 52:14, 15): the enemies of the righteous man will be amazed when he is

saved.

11. Wis 5:3–4 (Isa 53:3–4, 10): the wicked recall how they derided the righteous one and

withheld honor from him, even as they realize they were wrong.

12. Wis 5:5 (Isa 53:12): the Servant/righteous man will be allotted a reward for his commitment

to God.

13. Wis 5:6–7 (Isa 53:6): in the confessions of the enemies, they acknowledge that they

have “gone astray” (ἐπλανήθημεν) from “the way of truth/the Lord” (ὁδοῦ ἀληθείας

… ὁδὸν κυρίου, Wis) or while going their own “way” (τῇ ὁδῷ, Isa).

14. Wis 5:8–13 (Isa 53:9): wickedness is tied to wealth in both passages. While the Servant

identifies with the poor and afflicted, his enemies (wrongly) identify him with the

wicked and the rich (Isaiah). The righteous man’s enemies, however, reflect upon the

emptiness of their investment in arrogance and wealth.

 

It is interesting to note that many of the allusions to Isa 52–53 in Wis 2 and 5 are descriptive in nature, focusing on either the physical or spiritual characteristics of the Servant/righteous man. Both figures have appearances that are repulsive to their enemies. Both are mocked for what should be considered admirable qualities (gentleness and patience), but in the skewed worldview of their persecutors, these are regarded as signs of weakness and shame. This is because the wicked have “gone astray” – they are not following the ways of God and therefore cannot and will not judge rightly. In both texts, the protagonist’s relationship with God is called into question by his enemies. This is ironic, as it becomes clear at the end of these sections that the Servant/righteous man was indeed a πᾶις of God since both are vindicated in the presence of their enemies, as is indicated by the confessions from the mouths of the wicked themselves. (Holly J. Carey, “The Servants in Wisdom of Solomon,” in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity, ed. Jacob Stromberg and Michael A. Lyons [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 554; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021], 125-26)

 

 

 

Allusions to Isa 52-53 in Wis 1-6

 

There are a number of allusions to Isa 52–53 in the larger context of the first section of Wisdom (1–6), but particularly in the section between the two monologues of the wicked concerning the righteous man they persecuted (Wis 3–4). As mentioned earlier, these chapters are from the narrator’s perspective, offering thoughts on the futility of the wicked’s reasoning and actions. These too have a profound impact on Wis 2 and 5, as they reflect upon what the wicked have (falsely) reasoned in Wis 2, and because they help to set the stage for their admittance of guilt in Wis 5:

 

1. Wis 3:2–3 (Isa 53:4): the Servant is hurt at the hands of enemies who follow their own

reasoning (λογίζομαι).

2. Wis 3:2–3 (Isa 53:4, 8): the affliction of the Servant/righteous man is reiterated.

3. Wis 3:6 (Isa 53:7–10): the lives of the Servant and the righteous man are understood

as an offering.

4. Wis 3:9; 4:15 (Isa 52:13): those who are the Lord’s can find comfort in his acts on

their behalf.

5. Wis 3:13–4:6 (Isa 53:2, 10): the problem of the sterility and premature death of the

Servant/righteous man is overcome in vindication.

6. Wis 4:19 (Isa 52:15): in an ironic role-reversal, when the Servant/righteous man is

vindicated, his enemies will be speechless.

 

Of particular note concerning these allusions to Isa 52–53 in Wis 3–4 is that each of these allusions fall under two major categories: suffering and vindication. We will examine the impact of this more thoroughly in the discussion of shared themes between the Servant passages in Isaiah and Wisdom in a moment. For now, it will suffice to simply recognize that these two themes are of crucial importance from the narrator’s perspective, as he reflects on the folly of the

enemies of the righteous man. (Holly J. Carey, “The Servants in Wisdom of Solomon,” in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity, ed. Jacob Stromberg and Michael A. Lyons [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 554; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021], 127-28)

 

DEBATE: Is The Trinity Biblical & Coherent? Sijuwade vs. Ostler

 

DEBATE: Is The Trinity Biblical & Coherent? Sijuwade vs. Ostler

The Importance of the Writings of Thomas Aquinas in the 1917 Code of Canon Law

 The following from the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon law requires seminary professors and religious to formally study the writings of Aquinas:

 

Canon 589

 

§ 1. Religious correctly instructed in lower disciplines shall diligently pursue philosophical studies for at least two years and sacred theology for at least four years, adhering to the teachings of D[om] Thomas according to the norm of Canon 1366, § 2, according to the instructions of the Apostolic See.

Edward N. Peters, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 227.

 

§ 1. Religiosi in inferioribus disciplinis rite instructi, in philosophiae studia saltem per biennium et sacrae theologiae saltem per quadriennium, doctrinae D. Thomae inhaerentes ad normam can. 1366, § 2, diligenter incumbant, secundum instructiones Apostolicae Sedis.

Benedicti Papae XV and PII X Pontificis Maximi, Codex Iuris Canonici (Neo-Eboraci: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1918), 170.

 

 

Canon 1366

 

§ 2. Professors shall treat studies in rational theology and philosophy and the instruction of students in these disciplines according to the system, teaching, and principles of the Angelic Doctor and hold to them religiously.

Edward N. Peters, The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 460.

 

§ 2. Philosophiae rationalis ac theologiae studia et alumnorum in his disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant.

Benedicti Papae XV and PII X Pontificis Maximi, Codex Iuris Canonici (Neo-Eboraci: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1918), 398.

Cyril of Alexandria on Isaiah 7:15-16

  

Hence before the child knows good or evil, he will desert evil to choose the good. In other words, before human beings reach puberty and have not yet arrived at maturity, the time when respect is shown for good sense, they are completely unable to discern what is bad and what is good; but when that age summons them to it, then they exercise free will in their behavior. They divine nature in its loftiness, not being in a condition like us but in its characteristic elevation that is proper to it, never allows an approach of evil; it resists the forms of depravity, is unaffected by them, is subject to no upheaval, being instead by nature and essence intolerant of evil. It would be no different, in my view, from your saying in reference to light that it does not tolerate darkness; it cannot bring itself to experience what is not light. So he conveys the permanent attachment of the divine nature to good by saying, He will desert evil to choose the good. Now, this is also true of Christ himself, since he is born of the holy Virgin according to the flesh, being God by nature and coming as the Word from God, he was from the womb and before it—or, rather even before every age, being holy in being God, and not forfeiting his proper prerogatives as a result of his humanity; and on the other hand not failing in his human characteristics as a result of the Incarnation. The purpose was to confirm that he was really like us, and to hallow our very creation. (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, 3 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008], 1:169-70)

 

George Forman Sr. and Joseph Smith’s 56-year prophecy not being interpreted as a prediction of the date of the Parousia

  

Arpil, 1891. President Abram Hatch and William Buys gave us a good letter to Attorney Yarion and President Abram Hatch was in Salt Lake City and spoke to Governor Thomas and sos got him out.

 

As per Joseph Smith's prophesy that 56 years would wind up the scene so it did as judge Zane received a revelation to not send any more U.C. to the pen. To just fine them.

 

1890. In this year it is said the Messiah came and organized the Indians near Walker Lake, Nevada, We hear that there is an Indian called and known as the Indian Prophet. (William Forman Sr. genealogy and diary, ed. William Forman [1971], p.41, Church History Library, MS 22398, spelling in original retained)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies (e.g., Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91?)

 

William Forman Sr. recording Abram Chase Hatch Teaching that “few will receive celestial glory” (October 27, 1883)

  

October 27th, 1883, Sunday -- John Muir saw some of the people of Salt Lake City. Expects the legislature to pass a law to please the officers. Some are expecting the man to come who is to be mighty and strong to divide the inheritance. Says a great many are falling away and men and women are drinking in the saloons. President A. Hatch said we have the most perfect code of laws given to us as a people. Thinks that very few men observe all the laws. Thinks that few will receive celestial glory. He said that the Presidency of Makers will have to observe all the law or they will not be worthy examples. The High Counsel and Bishops are to be men of example. There are a few of the simple laws we have not observed. He does not say that's because we have not kept all that law that we will be cast out. The time is near when those who attend saloons will not have a name with us. (William Forman Sr. genealogy and diary, ed. William Forman [1971], p.27, Church History Library, MS 22398)