First Blessings

I’ve been married for nearly forty-three years: thanks be to God. Among the many things I’ve learned — some the easy way and too many the hard way — is this: in conversation with your beloved, you must always be alert to the unspoken subtext. There are the actual words spoken, yes, with a quite straightforward literal meaning. But there is often a meaning hidden within or underneath or behind the spoken words, a hidden meaning that you are expected to — and which you had better — understand. There are often two senses to marital communication: the literal and the relational.

It is the same with Scripture, only more so. The Church has long recognized and described various senses of the Word. There are the words themselves, yes, but they often contain multiple layers of meaning revealed by the Holy Spirit. We might describe the plain meaning of the text as its literal sense and the deeper meaning as its spiritual sense. So, for example, the Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem in its literal sense, but it is a description of the relationship between Christ and the Church in its deeper, spiritual sense.

So, what do we make of the Old Testament lesson appointed for Morning Prayer today (12 June), the story of the Gibeonite deception (see Joshua 9)? In its literal sense, it is simply an historical account of a clever and resourceful group of men who manage to pull the wool over Joshua’s eyes, to deceive him in order to spare their city from destruction. Like the shrewd manager in Jesus’ parable, you just have to give them some grudging admiration; well played men of Gibeon, well played.

But surely there is more to this story. If not, it won’t preach. If not, it lacks any power to inspire or encourage or exhort. If not, it lacks any spiritual sense.

But, there is more; there is a spiritual sense to the account; in fact, there are probably many ways to understand it spiritually. I’d like to suggest just one that might inform our own discipleship. In its spiritual sense this account offers an insightful description of temptation and sin, and it issues a stern warning. The desert fathers would have understood this perfectly.

The Gibeonites came to Joshua unbidden, disguised, and with lying words.

3 But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, 4 they on their part acted with cunning and went and made ready provisions and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, 5 with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes. And all their provisions were dry and crumbly (Josh 9:3-5, ESV throughout).

When Joshua inquired where they were from, they lied:

“From a very distant country your servants have come, because of the name of the LORD your God” (Josh 9:9a).

Unbidden, disguised, and lying, the Gibeonites came, which is exactly how temptation comes to us. It is the paradigm we see from the very beginning, from the Garden, when the evil one comes unbidden and unwelcomed into Eden, disguised as a serpent, and hissing lies to Eve about her Creator and his selfish intent for man: unbidden, disguised, and lying. Temptation is a subtle assault upon us, perpetrated by the world, the flesh, and the devil. It often appears harmless, as worn-out, torn, and mended as Gibeonite wineskins. And too often we are deceived, like Eve and Joshua. The first step toward sin is the assault, when temptation comes to us unbidden, disguised, and lying. There is no culpability here; Jesus himself was tempted. But there is danger.

When the Gibeonites arrived, Joshua and the army of Israel had already destroyed two cities: Jericho and Ai. In each, according to the command of God, all inhabitants had been placed under the ban, utterly destroyed. Why would Joshua suppose that God would desire anything different for these strangers arriving unbidden? Why would Joshua suppose that God might want him to spare and covenant with these inhabitants of the land? Why would Joshua entertain this notion? Why would he and the men of Israel interact with them?

7 But the men of Israel said to the Hivites, “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a covenant with you?” 8 They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you? And where do you come from” (Josh 9:7-8)?

Of course, the Gibeonites lied to Joshua and to the men of Israel, maintaining their disguise and their deception. “We are your servants,” they said, all the while pursuing a strategic position of advantage. And Joshua continued to engage, to interact, to consider the possibility of covenant with these strangers.

Temptation works in exactly the same way. It comes unbidden, disguised, and lying — so small, so insignificant, so worn and shabby, hardly recognizable at all. But, it is temptation. Why would we suppose that God would desire anything but for us to place it under the ban? Why would we suppose that God might want us to spare it and covenant with it? Why might we suppose that God might want us to interact with it at all? What if Eve had simply said, “Begone, serpent,” rather than engaging in conversation with the evil one? What if David had simply averted his eyes from Bathsheba instead of entertaining his growing lust? What if I, recognizing a temptation, simply refused to engage it, refused to interact with it? Temptations may buzz around us like so many flies, but we do not have to grant them a safe place to land. Temptations come knocking on the door seeking a place to lodge, but we don’t have to share our hospitality. The second step toward sin in interaction.

There is a telling verse next — a damning verse — in this account:

14 So the men [of Israel] took some of [the Gibeonites’] provisions, but did not ask counsel from the LORD (Josh 9:14).

There’s the heart of the problem: the men of Israel engaged with the Gibeonites but not with the Lord. And notice another subtle but crucial shift in the trajectory of the Joshua narrative. The priests were central in the crossing of the Jordan River. The priests were instrumental in the seven-day siege of Jericho. But, the priests are absent from the account of Israel’s defeat at Ai. And the priests are absent from the account of the Gibeonite deception. There is a movement away from the Lord and his representatives and toward the men of Israel and the power of the army. And that is a disastrous shift. Had Joshua simply dismissed the Gibeonites without engagement, without considering their request; had Joshua engaged the priests and sought the word of the Lord instead of contemplating a covenant with the deceivers, how differently this account might read.

If I refused to engage temptation, to interact with what it offers; if I engaged instead with holy men and women, trusted mentors and guides, and sought the word of the Lord, how differently my life might read.

Temptation comes unbidden, disguised, and lying to assault us. Instead of confessing the temptation to godly men or women and together seeking the word of the Lord with prayer and fasting, we too often interact with temptation; we consider what it has to say and to offer. And, if we continue down that path, the next words written about Joshua may well be said of us:

15 And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them, to let them live, and the leaders of the congregation swore to them (Josh 9:15).

Rich Mullins has a song that expresses our human condition powerfully and poetically, as only Rich could do:

We are frail, we are fearfully and wonderfully made

Forged in the fires of human passion

Choking on the fumes of selfish rage

And with these our hells and our heavens

So few inches apart

We must be awfully small

And not as strong as we think we are (Rich Mullins, We Are Not as Strong as We Think We Are)

The world, the flesh, and the devil have had eons to perfect temptation, while we are awfully small and not as strong as we think we are. If we do not flee temptation’s assault, if we foolishly engage temptation, if we look to our own wisdom and the might of our own army instead of seeking out the communion of the saints and the power of prayer and the word of God, we will find ourselves making peace with temptation and covenant with sin. And that is the third step toward sin: consent. Now, we are culpable.

This text is not simply a slightly humorous account of how a clever band of tricksters deceived Joshua and the elders of Israel. It is a cautionary tale for us, laying out the way temptation assaults us, showing the danger of engaging temptation, warning against the ever-present possibility of making peace with temptation and covenant with sin. Temptation will come; we will be assaulted. But we have this promise:

13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Cor 10:13).

And we have this tale as both warning and guide. Amen.

The following parable is from The Wounded Healer by Henri Nouwen. Though AI was not on the horizon when he wrote, the modern, technological world was, and it was playing havoc with man’s mental and spiritual condition. I do not think it abuses or stretches the parable to see AI in its “moral.”

Four royal sons were questioning what specialty they should master. They said to one another, “Let us search the earth and learn a special science.” So they decided, and after they had agreed on a place where they would meet again, the four brothers started off, each in a different direction. Time went by, and the brothers met again at the appointed meeting place, and they asked one another what they had learned. “I have mastered a science,” said the first, “which makes it possible for me, if I have nothing but a piece of bone of some creature, to create straight away the flesh that goes with it.” “I,” said the second, “know how to grow that creature’s skin and hair if there is flesh on its bones.” The third said, “I am able to create its limbs if I have the flesh, the skin, and the hair.” “And I,” concluded the fourth, “know how to give life to that creature if its form is complete with limbs.”

Thereupon the four brothers went into the jungle to find a piece of bone so that they could demonstrate their specialties. As fate would have it, the bone they found was a lion’s, but they did not know that and picked up the bone. On added flesh to the bone, the second grew hide and hair, the third completed it with matching limbs, and the fourth gave the lion life. Shaking its heavy mane, the ferocious beast arose with its menacing mouth, sharp teeth, and merciless claws and jumped on his creators. He killed them all and vanished contentedly into the jungle.

Apostles Anglican Church
Fr. John A. Roop

Introduction To The Apocrypha

The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.
Let us pray.

Blessed Lord, who caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and the comfort of your Holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Foreword

As Anglican Christians, we value Holy Scripture as the very Word of God written. We stand under the authority of Christ ministered, not least, through Holy Scripture. It is pre-eminent among all texts. But it is not the only book — books — that we find of value. We treasure the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Desert Fathers, the saints and apologists and theologians — male and female — of the Church throughout the ages. And no good Anglican thinks it amiss when a priest, preacher, or teacher quotes C. S. Lewis or John Donne or even N. T. Wright. But let that same speaker quote from the Apocrypha and some people “go all squirrely.” Why is that? Why is there such suspicion toward these books? Part of the answer is the unfortunate historical animosity between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Part of the answer is just lack of familiarity with the Apocrypha — what it is, what it contains, and how it is rightly considered and used by Anglicans.

In this overview of the Apocrypha we hope to ease some of that suspicion by showing how the Apocrypha can be properly and faithfully used and by familiarizing you with some of its content, particularly those books that are read by Anglicans in the Daily Office and at the Eucharist.

Introduction: The Three Shelves of Scripture

When we think of Holy Scripture — the Bible — we typically have in mind a single volume containing both the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) and the New Testament (the Christian Scriptures): one book, two testaments. But, the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books by multiple authors written over centuries now bound together for convenience sake into the single book of our sacred writings. St. Paul mentions these writings in his second letter to Timothy:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17).

St. Paul reminds Timothy that from his childhood Timothy was acquainted with the “sacred writings,” the same word translated in verse 16 as Scripture. And St. Paul insists that all these scriptures are God-breathed, that they are profitable, and that they contribute to our completion as God’s holy people. He doesn’t specify the names of the individual books that constitute the sacred writings, and he doesn’t delve deeply into how the books became the sacred writings.

And, we don’t often think about the process by which the sacred writings became the finished Bible, either, but it would be helpful to do that now, at least in very abbreviated fashion. Scholarly careers are built on this topic. A vast body of historical, literary, and linguistic research exists. Whole schools of thought are built around it. So, it is not even the tip of the iceberg that we’ll look at — just enough for our purposes.

We start with God the Holy Spirit. What St. Peter says specifically about the prophetic word of Scripture, we accept as true for the whole of Scripture:

21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21).

The scriptural word that men spoke was/is from God, given specifically under the direction of the Holy Spirit. What that means precisely is open to a range of interpretations. But, it seems clear that the creation of God’s written word was a joint venture between God and men, that men were more than mere scribes, that their humanity comes through in these writings in a way that does not compromise the divine status of the word. Men weren’t ciphers, but rather a real and vital part of the process of producing Scripture. We have four Gospels and not one: four different perspectives from four different human authors working under the auspices of the Holy Spirit.

Man’s involvement doesn’t stop with the initial act of writing. The Scriptures were copied and edited and compiled and translated over generations. They are still being translated today through the good and godly work of societies like Wycliffe Bible Translators. None of this is haphazard. All of it is superintended by God the Holy Spirit to ensure that the finished product is the Word of God, the word that God wants us to have to reveal himself, to form us into the kind of people he wants us to be, and to govern our life together in the Church.

There is another important step in this process that is particularly germane to our purposes in this class. The Bible did not come complete with a table of contents. Instead, there were a host of individual books being used by the people of God, both his old covenant people and his new covenant people. From this variety of books, different Jewish and Christian communities compiled collections of books that they considered authoritative, books in which they clearly heard the voice and word of God and to whose authority they submitted themselves.

Imagine that in compiling these books for their use — in selecting which books the community considered authoritative — a community had three bookshelves with which to sort the books into categories. (I believe I first heard this three shelf analogy from Orthodox priest and scholar Fr. Stephen DeYoung.) On the top shelf they put all the books in which they clearly and perfectly heard the word of God. We’ll call this shelf Canon, from a word that denotes a measuring stick. These books are the standard, the ruler, by which all other books will be judged or measured. They are the books authorized for public reading and teaching in the community. These are recognized as being uniquely the word of God written. On the bottom shelf are the clearly inferior and erroneous books that may not be read in public worship and should not even be read privately. We’ll call this shelf Heresy. But what about the middle shelf? This is the tricky one. These books aren’t heretical; they won’t lead you away from God or into bad morals. But, they are of mixed quality and usefulness; some parts are brilliant and some parts are less so and perhaps confusing. Some are histories and some are fictional morality tales, romping good reads but of secondary spiritual significance.

We’ll call this shelf Apocrypha, a word that means “hidden.” That is, they are hidden from public use in the community. You are welcome to read them privately, and, in fact, there is great benefit in doing so. But, you have to read them with discernment. Always measure them against those books on the top shelf, the Canon. Anything that agrees with the canonical books is fine; anything that might seem to disagree is suspect. You do not use the apocryphal books to formulate any doctrine not found in the canonical books, but you can use them to support and illustrate “canonical” doctrine and to help you lead a life of wisdom and virtue. And the histories are quite useful for understanding the world out of which the canonical books came. Most of the books on the middle shelf were written in what we consider the silent years between the end of the Old Testament era and the beginning of the New Testament, let’s say between 400 – 200 B.C. These were books well known to Jesus and his disciples — the history, religious fiction, and wisdom that shaped their culture.

Now imagine many different communities sorting all these books with this same three-shelf process. How likely is it that all the same books would end up on the same shelves across all communities? I suspect there would be significant agreement, maybe especially on those books that are heretical. And I think there would be a common core of canonical books; some would appear across all the different communities. But there would also be some variation. A few books on the middle shelf in some communities might be on the top shelf in others. That is exactly what we see historically: different communities with different canons, not vastly different, but with a few different books here and there. Again, keep in mind that I have grossly simplified a complex process, but this will do for our purposes.

Over time, two Old Testament canons rose to prominence: one used by Hebrew speaking Jews, the Masoretic Text still used in Rabbinic Judaism, and the Septuagint, a Greek translation widely used in the first century and beyond when the use of Hebrew waned and Greek became the “world’s language.” The Hebrew Masoretic Text contains fewer books than does the Septuagint and the Vulgate, a later Latin translation. Those books that are included in the canon of the Septuagint and Vulgate and excluded from the Masoretic Text are what we call the Apocrypha. They are canonical in some faith communities — Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, for example — but not in others. The Old Testament canon in most Protestant churches is based on the Hebrew/Masoretic Text and does not include these apocryphal books. If your Bible has 66 books — 39 OT and 27 NT — it does not contain the Apocrypha.

Bibles used by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians disperse these books that we consider apocryphal throughout the Bible in appropriate places based on literary genre. The books are, after all, canonical for them and no distinction is made between them and the other books. In most Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha, the books are grouped together and placed either between the Old and New Testaments or “sequestered” in the back of the Bible to emphasize that they are not canonical. Some publishers even print the Apocrypha in smaller font to set it apart from the canon, which in increasingly infuriating as I get older and my vision declines even further.

Anglicanism and the Apocrypha

The Anglican approach to the Apocrypha is the typical via media, more both-and than either-or. I’ll let our formularies — our controlling documents — speak to this issue.

From The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571 (BCP 2019, p. 772 ff), specifically Article VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church (BCP 2019, p. 773).

In other words, by Holy Scriptures we mean the core of books common to all Christian Churches: the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, precisely what you find in any Protestant Bible. But the article continues and addresses the Apocrypha:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following (BCP 2019, p. 774).

And then it lists the fourteen books of the Apocrypha. Similarly, the ACNA Catechism To Be A Christian says this about the Apocrypha:

The fourteen books of the Apocrypha, historically acknowledged by this church, are pre-Christian Jewish writing that provide background for the New Testament and are included in many editions of the Bible. They may be read as examples of faithful living but “not to establish any doctrine” (Articles of Religion, 6).

So, we Anglicans find the Apocrypha useful for background historical and cultural information, for devotion and inspiration, for wisdom, and for examples of holy living. We read any and all of the books privately and selections from some of them in both our eucharistic and daily office lectionaries. But, in doing so, we preserve the distinction between the canonical books and the apocryphal books. When a selection from the Apocrypha is read in public worship we do not conclude the reading with “The Word of the Lord / Thanks be to God.” We simply say, “Here ends the reading.” We are not exactly saying that the word from the Apocrypha is not inspired, but we are not claiming that it is.

Of the fourteen books in the Apocrypha the ACNA includes readings from six of them in either the Eucharistic readings or the Daily Office Readings:

Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Sirach)

Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon)

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Judith

Susanna

Ecclesiasticus, the most widely read of the apocryphal books, and Wisdom of Solomon are examples of wisdom literature on the order of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament or James in the New Testament. The texts teach the value of acquiring wisdom and of living rightly (wisely and righteously).

1, 2 Maccabees are historical accounts of Jewish life and struggles in the intertestimental period. They recount the response of the Jews to various attempts to conquer them and to erase their Jewish identity and faith. They also give us the origin of the Feast of Hanukkah, just as Esther gives the origin of Purim. You might think of these books like the canonical histories of 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Judith is akin to Esther: a hero story of how a righteous woman outsmarted pagan armies who threatened the Jewish people. Because of some historical anomalies in the story, it is quite likely fictional.

Susannah is thought by scholars to be a fictional short story — a morality tale — that introduces Daniel and shows his wisdom in defending righteous Susannah from false accusations and death. It is a fun, short read — a sort of crime drama.

Susannah

Susannah is the first of the books we’ll look at. It is quite short; you have the full text on your handout. I will read it aloud and then I have some questions for you to consider in your table groups. If we don’t have adequate time to get to all the questions or to discuss them together, then that is your “homework.”

Apostles Anglican Church
Fr. John A. Roop

Introduction To The Apocrypha: Susanna

SUSANNA (Chapter 13 of the Greek version of Daniel)

1 There was a man living in Babylon whose name was Joakim. 2 He married the daughter of Hilkiah, named Susanna, a very beautiful woman and one who feared the Lord. 3 Her parents were righteous, and had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses. 4 Joakim was very rich, and had a fine garden adjoining his house; the Jews used to come to him because he was the most honored of them all.

5 That year two elders from the people were appointed as judges. Concerning them the Lord had said: “Wickedness came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people.” 6 These men were frequently at Joakim’s house, and all who had a case to be tried came to them there.

7 When the people left at noon, Susanna would go into her husband’s garden to walk. 8 Every day the two elders used to see her, going in and walking about, and they began to lust for her. 9 They suppressed their consciences and turned away their eyes from looking to Heaven or remembering their duty to administer justice. 10 Both were overwhelmed with passion for her, but they did not tell each other of their distress, 11 for they were ashamed to disclose their lustful desire to seduce her. 12 Day after day they watched eagerly to see her.

13 One day they said to each other, “Let us go home, for it is time for lunch.” So they both left and parted from each other. 14 But turning back, they met again; and when each pressed the other for the reason, they confessed their lust. Then together they arranged for a time when they could find her alone.

15 Once, while they were watching for an opportune day, she went in as before with only two maids, and wished to bathe in the garden, for it was a hot day. 16 No one was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her. 17 She said to her maids, “Bring me olive oil and ointments, and shut the garden doors so that I can bathe.” 18 They did as she told them: they shut the doors of the garden and went out by the side doors to bring what they had been commanded; they did not see the elders, because they were hiding.

19 When the maids had gone out, the two elders got up and ran to her. 20 They said, “Look, the garden doors are shut, and no one can see us. We are burning with desire for you; so give your consent, and lie with us. 21 If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was with you, and this was why you sent your maids away.”

22 Susanna groaned and said, “I am completely trapped. For if I do this, it will mean death for me; if I do not, I cannot escape your hands. 23 I choose not to do it; I will fall into your hands, rather than sin in the sight of the Lord.”

24 Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and the two elders shouted against her. 25 And one of them ran and opened the garden doors. 26 When the people in the house heard the shouting in the garden, they rushed in at the side door to see what had happened to her. 27 And when the elders told their story, the servants felt very much ashamed, for nothing like this had ever been said about Susanna.

28 The next day, when the people gathered at the house of her husband Joakim, the two elders came, full of their wicked plot to have Susanna put to death. In the presence of the people they said, 29 “Send for Susanna daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim.” 30 So they sent for her. And she came with her parents, her children, and all her relatives.

31 Now Susanna was a woman of great refinement and beautiful in appearance. 32 As she was veiled, the scoundrels ordered her to be unveiled, so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. 33 Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping.

34 Then the two elders stood up before the people and laid their hands on her head. 35 Through her tears she looked up toward Heaven, for her heart trusted in the Lord. 36 The elders said, “While we were walking in the garden alone, this woman came in with two maids, shut the garden doors, and dismissed the maids. 37 Then a young man, who was hiding there, came to her and lay with her. 38 We were in a corner of the garden, and when we saw this wickedness we ran to them. 39 Although we saw them embracing, we could not hold the man, because he was stronger than we, and he opened the doors and got away. 40 We did, however, seize this woman and asked who the young man was, 41 but she would not tell us. These things we testify.”

Because they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death.

42 Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, “O eternal God, you know what is secret and are aware of all things before they come to be; 43 you know that these men have given false evidence against me. And now I am to die, though I have done none of the wicked things that they have charged against me!”

44 The Lord heard her cry. 45 Just as she was being led off to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young lad named Daniel, 46 and he shouted with a loud voice, “I want no part in shedding this woman’s blood!”

47 All the people turned to him and asked, “What is this you are saying?” 48 Taking his stand among them he said, “Are you such fools, O Israelites, as to condemn a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts? 49 Return to court, for these men have given false evidence against her.”

50 So all the people hurried back. And the rest of the elders said to him, “Come, sit among us and inform us, for God has given you the standing of an elder.” 51 Daniel said to them, “Separate them far from each other, and I will examine them.”

52 When they were separated from each other, he summoned one of them and said to him, “You old relic of wicked days, your sins have now come home, which you have committed in the past, 53 pronouncing unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, though the Lord said, ‘You shall not put an innocent and righteous person to death.’ 54 Now then, if you really saw this woman, tell me this: Under what tree did you see them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under a mastic tree.” 55 And Daniel said, “Very well! This lie has cost you your head, for the angel of God has received the sentence from God and will immediately cut you in two.”

56 Then, putting him to one side, he ordered them to bring the other. And he said to him, “You offspring of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart. 57 This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your wickedness. 58 Now then, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under an evergreen oak.” 59 Daniel said to him, “Very well! This lie has cost you also your head, for the angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, so as to destroy you both.”

60 Then the whole assembly raised a great shout and blessed God, who saves those who hope in him. 61 And they took action against the two elders, because out of their own mouths Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness; they did to them as they had wickedly planned to do to their neighbor. 62 Acting in accordance with the law of Moses, they put them to death. Thus innocent blood was spared that day.

63 Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, and so did her husband Joakim and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of a shameful deed. 64 And from that day onward Daniel had a great reputation among the people.

Questions

1. The tension that drives the story is first presented in verse 2: Susanna was very beautiful and she feared the Lord. This raises a question that is foundational for the book: What constitutes true beauty? How does the story answer that question? You might compare this story with a word of wisdom from Prov 31 and with the direct instruction in 1 Peter 3:1-6.

2. This story provides great insight into the progression of sin. Read verses 5-18 to see how the elders spiral downward from temptation to slavery to the passion of lust. What did they do that they should not have done? What did they fail to do that they should have done? How does this compare to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (5:27-30)?

3. The story circles back to the issue of true beauty — implicitly — in verses 19-23. How does it answer the question of the nature of beauty? How might these verses speak to a people in exile — as the Jews in the story were — and to Christians facing persecution?

4. Susanna cries out twice in the story (vss 24 and 42). This is clear evidence that she knew the Torah (verse 3); see Deut 22:23-24. Remember that people came to Joachim’s house for judgment. How should the wise among them have understood Susanna’s cries?

5. Compare verses 34-41 — especially the last sentence in vs 41 — to Deut 1:9-18. What does this say about godly justice?

6. Though the book of Susanna is a morality tale, it also serves as wisdom literature. Note how Daniel exhibits wisdom in keeping with the Law, very reminiscent of Solomon.

7. This book is apocryphal and not canonical. But, can you see any benefits of reading it in the Church?

St Paul, reflecting on the plurality and untidiness of the communities that are springing up, is driven to conclude that what is happening in these assemblies (the Greek word we translate as ‘church’ originally meant something like a convocation, a group of people summoned to debate together or work together) must be more than the gathering together of like-minded individuals, members of a kind of religious society. Paul uses the analogy of the different bits of the human body. Your body is not a kind of committee composed of representatives of the hands, representatives of the feet, representatives of the stomach, all sitting round a table and discussing issues of common concern. In this situation, one of them might leave, and the discussion would still go on — the authorised representatives of the interests of the stomach could get up and leave the table while the hands and feet go on negotiating. This is not how any real living organism works,

To paraphrase Paul a little, when I’ve got a cold, I’ve got a cold — t’s not just my nose that has the cold. When I have a heart attack, I have a heart attack — it’s not just a single organ in my chest that’s affected. In the body, everything affects everything; and this is why membership in the Christian community is not just like being par of a group that might go on working even if someone goes off on their own. If bits of your body start disappearing or ceasing to function, you will notice quite soon. If, as Paul puts it, one bit of the body says, ‘I can get along perfectly well without the others,’ the mistake becomes obvious in short order (Rowan Williams, Discovering Christianity: A guide for the curious, SPCK Publishing (2025), p. 38 Kindle edition).

The Eastern Church and the Western Church, the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, the ACNA and The Episcopal Church, GAFCON/GAC and the Anglican Communion: self-amputations all. Sometimes amputation is necessary to preserve the health of the whole body, but the act always leaves the body disfigured. It must always be grieved. Reunification must always be the goal. Imagine the Venus de Milo with arms.

Following is an “opinion piece” that I recently read online:

It’s hard for us to remember that people became saints and were able to live a “legitimate” spiritual life for nearly five centuries before the Church fell into it’s “monastic captivity” (Fr. Tom Hopko’s phrase regarding the influence of monasticism on the church up to today).

The man “in the world” that St. Anthony the Great (the father of monasticism) was sent to for schooling in the spiritual life attained it without a monastic “holy elder” confessor, the Philokalia, the Rudder, a Horologion and Menaion, or a “fasting calendar” with all the pink days that lists whether you can have fish, wine or oil that day, etc. etc.

It’s all good until it is more of an obsession than being a Christian.

This piece was written from within an Orthodox context. The argument is simple: since there were holy men and women — saints — in the generations before the growth of monasticism, then neither monasticism, the wisdom of the elders, a spiritual guide, nor the disciplines of the Church are necessary for the conduct of a holy life and even for “sainthood.”

As far as the statement goes, it is, I suppose, true. It is also true that amputations were performed before antiseptics and anesthesia, but few would argue against their use today. Pioneers once crossed the country in wagons and on horseback, but not many of us would prefer those modes of transportation to automobiles and airplanes. I once navigated by map and AAA Triptiks; now I use a GPS and, while I have a nostalgia for maps, I recognize the advantages of modern technology.

At one level, I agree with the author of the piece: monasticism is not the primary model of or context for Christian holiness. The Church is: the Church universal and the church local. And this is also the level at which I disagree with the author and why I even bothered to comment. When he (?) suggests that the Horologion and Menaion, the fasting calendar, etc., etc. are unnecessary for one’s formation in holiness, he is close to rejecting those disciplines that the Church has developed and bequeathed us for the cultivation of holiness, the disciplines that foster holiness for the many. As an Anglican, can I progress toward holiness without the Book of Common Prayer? Of course, just as I could conceivably stumble through a 10k race with my shoe laces tied together. But, why would I handicap myself?

The Reformers erred — gasp! — in discarding certain Church institutions and practices because of historic abuse and misuse of those institutions and practices, monasticism chief among the discards. The Reformers’ spiritual descendants have suffered a certain spiritual deficit since. In the Orthodox Church, bishops are most often selected from the monasteries, from the rank of monks, not because these are the only saints among us — not even because they are saints! — but because they have been formed by monastic ideals of humility, worship, holy poverty/simplicity, prayer, silence, repentance, and forgiveness. We could do worse. In too many cases, we are doing worse. And though I am not and, thank God, never will be a bishop, I would be a better priest to the extent that I had been better formed in these disciplines. And, here is the truth: I would be a better Christian if I had been better formed in these disciplines. To reject the wisdom of the Church as expressed in and through monasticism and the disciplines of the Church is a grave, self-inflicted wound. Why would one choose that?

From a letter written by C. S. Lewis to an Italian Roman Catholic priest and frequent correspondent:

August 10, 1953

Dearest Father,

I think almost all the crimes which Christians have perpetrated against each other arise from this, that religion is confused with politics. For, above all other spheres of human life, the Devil claims politics for his own, as almost the citadel of his power. Let us, however, with mutual prayers pray with all our power for that charity which “covers a multitude of sins.” Farewell, comrade and father (C. S. Lewis, Letters On Living The Faith, HarperOne (2026), pp.195-196).

There is grace in every moment, grace sufficient for that moment: not grace as a theological abstraction, not grace as the general, favorable disposition of God, but grace as the presence and power of God working for good and for salvation. In temptation it is the grace to see the way of escape. In the wilderness, in confusion, when death seems or is near, it is the grace to remember the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In darkness, it is the grace to keep looking to the Light which has come into the world and it is the conviction that the darkness has not overcome it. In weariness it is the grace to cling to the One who said, “Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls.” In despair it is the grace to cry out, “O God, make speed to save me; O Lord, made haste to help me!” It is not ours to find the grace, but to ask God to reveal it — to reveal himself — and then to embrace it — to embrace him — with all the little within us when he does. It is ours to ask, “What is the grace in this moment, Lord?”

All throughout the discernment process for ordination and, indeed, all throughout my priesthood until this very day, a verse from Psalm 69 has been a haunting refrain and prayer. It is not coincidence, I am sure, that it was appointed for the Daily Office on this, the first of the Summer Ember Days, the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday following Pentecost when the Church offers prayers for all those called to and serving in ordained ministry.

6 Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord God of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel (Ps 69:6, ESV).

It is a prayer of priestly first aid based on the medical model: First, do no harm. There are days when that seems an exceedingly low bar for ministry, and terrible moments when it seems almost beyond my reach. But, as I said in my ordination vows, this I will do, “God being my helper.”

In the Book of Common Prayer, we have this prayer for use on Ember Days: I commend it to you and covet your prayers for all those who are called to ordained ministry, and certainly for me, an unworthy servant.

Almighty God, the giver of all good gifts, in your divine providence you have appointed various orders in your Church: Give your grace, we humbly pray, to all who are called to any office and ministry for your people; and so fill them with the truth of your doctrine and clothe them with holiness of life, that they may faithfully serve before you, to the glory of your great Name and for the benefit of your holy Church; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Are we alone in the universe? Certainly not: there are angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, and there are powers and principalities neither good nor even benign. The former aid us in the war we wage against the latter.

But are we alone in the popular sense of being the only intelligent life in the cosmos? Or, are there extraterrestrials, some of whom may even have “visited” Earth in what we euphemistically refer to as Unexplained Aerial Phenomena (UAP).? That is the question — isn’t it? — currently en vogue with each new release of Pentagon files or photos.

From time to time I think about this and ponder how the existence of “alien” life might factor into our Christian theology. If they were to come, would we evangelize their species? Man fell, but what about non-man? What about those not in Adam? Christ died for the sins of the whole world, yes, but just this world or perhaps others, too?

I do not know; this is larger than I am and I do not greatly concern myself with it:

O LORD, I am not haughty;
I have no proud looks.
I do not occupy myself with great matters,
or with things that are too high for me (Ps 131:1-2).

Recently, I read a letter from C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths (8 Feb 1956) that addresses these questions quite well. I do not know the context of the letter, but the content is quintessential Lewis:

One often wonders how different the content of our faith will look when we see it in the total context. Might it be as if one were living on an infinite earth? Further knowledge would leave our map of, say, the Atlantic quite correct, but if it turned out to be the estuary of a great river — and the continent through which that river flowed turned out to be itself an island — of the shores of a still greater continent — and so on! You see what I mean? Not one jot of Revelation will be proved false: but so many new truths might be added (C. S. Lewis, Letter On Living The Faith, HarperOne (2026), p. 151).