Search Results

The blessed month of Ⲧⲱⲃⲉ is known by its focus on and many celebrations of the Divine Manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Throughout this month, the Coptic Church presents for her members a series of readings in her Sunday Lectionary, and also in the readings associated with the Feasts of the Lord that are celebrated this month, that depict the Lord’s Manifestation in a twofold manner: firstly, God is manifested to all of creation in and by virtue of His glorious incarnation and in the events in the life of our Lord that the Church celebrates during this month — His circumcision, baptism, and the first of His signs which He performed at the wedding in Cana of Galilee — and secondly, His manifestation is personally connected to our lives, deeds, and behaviors as Christians. The first of the feasts of the Divine Manifestation after the Nativity is the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is celebrated in the Coptic Church on the sixth of Ⲧⲱⲃⲉ, eight days after the Feast of the Nativity (inclusive). We learn of His circumcision from the Gospel according to St. Luke: “And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” [1] In closely examining circumcision as it was practiced in the Old Testament, the significance of the circumcision of our Lord, and of this Feast, becomes clear. God Himself commanded Abraham to practice circumcision as both a symbol of His covenant with man and as a distinguishing sign of God’s people. [2] He delineated specific instructions to Abraham in connection with the practice: “And the child of eight days old shall be circumcised by you, every male throughout your generations…And the uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be utterly destroyed from its family, for he has broken my covenant.” [3] In the circumcision of our Lord, we observe His complete obedience to the Law of the Old Testament, and how He, while being Himself the Lawgiver, did not hold Himself above the Law. Indeed, since circumcision was God’s commandment to His people, it was necessary that Christ, the Son of God, observe it. St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Third Homily on the Gospel of St. Luke, explains: “Again, when the Son was present among us, though by nature God and the Lord of all, He does not on that account despise our measure, but along with us is subject to the same law, although as God He was Himself the legislator.” [4] What a wonder it is to behold Christ’s willingness to observe the Law and His obedience to it! “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” [5] It was Adam’s disregard and disobedience of God’s Law that caused him to sin and his nature to become corrupt: “Through the advice of Eve our first mother, Adam ate from the fruit of the tree. So came to our race and all the creation the authority of death and corruption.” [6] It is therefore through the obedience of the Second Adam to the Law, and His fulfillment in Himself of all that was required for our salvation, that the sin of the first Adam is abolished and we are renewed. “Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.” [7] “Yes truly He confirmed His incarnation, and fulfilled our humility by His circumcision. Therefore, He taught us the ways of salvation, and He has saved us according to His great mercy.” [8] The practice of circumcision, which was legislated by God to His people in the Old Testament, served three purposes, according to St. Cyril: “…in the first place, it separated the posterity of Abraham by a sort of sign and seal, and distinguished them from all other nations. In the second, it prefigured in itself the grace and efficacy of Divine baptism; for as in old time he that was circumcised was reckoned among the people of God by that seal, so also he that is baptized, having formed in himself Christ the seal, is enrolled into God’s adopted family. And, thirdly, it is the symbol of the faithful when established in grace, who cut away and mortify the tumultuous risings of carnal pleasures and passions by the sharp surgery of faith, and by ascetic labors; not cutting the body, but purifying the heart, and being circumcised in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise, as the divine Paul testifies, needs not the sentence of any human tribunal, but depends upon the decree from above.” [9] Circumcision served as the Old Testament precursor — the “type,” “prefigure,” or “shadow” — to baptism in the New Testament. For as God gave Abraham circumcision as the seal of those who were once His people, so also did He grant to His Church baptism by water and the Spirit — along with the mystery of Chrismation — as the seal of those who are the new Israel [10] — His new people: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” [11] St. Paul also writes: “ In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ” [12] Regarding this, Būlus al-Būshī, the thirteenth century Coptic Orthodox bishop, writes: “The Lord has given us baptism in the place of circumcision; his blood and flesh in place of the lambs’ flesh…Circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the spirit…It is not the same, nor even the circumcision [itself]. Rather, it is the cleanliness and the purification of the heart in the Holy Spirit by means of baptism.” [13] While the practice of circumcision, as it was known in the Old Testament, has been put away by the inauguration of the reality it prefigured — Christian baptism — there remains still a personal spiritual significance of circumcision to Christians. St. Cyril explains: “For on the eighth day Christ arose from the dead, and gave us the spiritual circumcision. For He commanded the holy Apostles: ‘Having gone, make ye disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ [14] And we affirm that the spiritual circumcision takes place chiefly in the season of holy baptism, when also Christ makes us partakers of the Holy Spirit. And of this again, that Jesus [15] of old, who was captain after Moses, was a type. For he first of all led the children of Israel across the Jordan; and then having halted them, immediately circumcised them with knives of stone. So when we have crossed the Jordan, Christ circumcises us with the power of the Holy Spirit, not purifying the flesh, but rather cutting off the defilement that is in our souls.” [16] Circumcision for the believer, then, is firstly baptism itself, by which, through dying with Christ and rising with Him, the old nature is renewed, the inherited sin is wiped away, and the baptizee is transferred from darkness to light, grafted as a new branch — a new member — in the Tree of Life, Christ and His Body, the Church, sealed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit as signified by the anointing of the oil of the chrism; [17] secondly, it is the cutting off of all evil inclinations, sinful thoughts, and carnal desires from the heart and mind. It is the cutting off of the old life in order to adopt the new and superior life, [18] which is that of Christ. This is accomplished by the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit and through our obedience to the commandments of our Lord: “Unless he keeps the commandments of God, a man cannot make progress, not even in a single virtue.” [19] The Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord is a commemoration of a significant event in the Lord’s economy  of salvation. St. Cyril writes: “His death, therefore, was for our sakes, as were also His resurrection and His circumcision.” [20] Moreover, it is a sobering call and a convicting reminder to cut off the hindrances to our growth in virtue and in the knowledge of God, and to renew our journey with Him, so that with Origen of Alexandria, we may confidently proclaim: “When He died, we died with Him, and when He rose, we rose with Him. Likewise, we were also circumcised along with Him.” [21] To God is due all glory. — [1] Luke 2:21 [2] Genesis 17:12-13 ( LXX ) [3] Genesis 17:12-14 ( LXX ) [4] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.6 [5] Romans 5:19 [6] Ⲗⲱⲃϣ of the Monday θεοτοκια [7] Romans 15:8-9 [8] Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ for the Feast of the Circumcision and the Entry of the Lord into the Temple , 17-19 [9] St. Cyril of Alexandra, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.7 [10] See  Galatians 6:16; see also Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; 1 Peter 2:4-10 [11] Ephesians 1:13 [12] Colossians 2:11-12 [13] Būlus al-Būshī, Commentary on the Apocalypse of John ch.1-3  in Stephen J. Davis, Revelation 1-3 in Christian Arabic Commentary, 68-69 [14] Matthew 28:19 [15] Joshua [16] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.4 [17] Regarding the chrism, see, e.g. , Origen, Commentary on Romans , V, 8: “We are baptized with visible water and visible chrism according to the tradition of the church;” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures , XXI, 3: “But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ's gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”  [18] See Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ for the Three Saintly Children [19] Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers , 20 (Abba Agathon, Saying 3) [20] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 3.5 [21] Origen the Great, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Luke , Homily 14.1 —

In commemoration of the third anniversary of the departure of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary, hegumen of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, Natick, Massachusetts USA, the following is a translation of a homily delivered on August 11, 2002 by Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. May his prayers be with us. —  In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — One God. Amen. May His grace, mercy, and blessing be with us all, now and forever, and unto the age of all ages. Amen. []   Today, our subject is from the Gospel of our teacher St. Luke the Evangelist, chapter 20. The Lord Jesus Christ, during the last week [of His earthly ministry], would go to the Temple and return to Bethany. In those final days, He entered the Temple and found in it sellers of doves, sheep, and cattle, and so He was deeply grieved that the house of prayer was converted into a place of trade and profit. This reflects also on the sellers, the thieves, the priests, the scribes, the elders, and the leaders of the people. They were all giving one another. And so He was grieved that the house of holiness and prayer was converted into a place of business. Using a whip, he drove out the sellers of doves and overturned their tables, and said to those who were buying and selling, and those who kept the money, “My house is a house of prayer” (Luke 19:46) which is a prophecy from the Old Testament in which the Lord said: “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” ( see Jeremiah 7:11).   As a result of this event, the people gathered to hear Him, as it was their custom, because they enjoyed hearing His words. He gave them a similar parable, which is the parable of the vineyard and the vinedressers:   “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away shamefully treated. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him...’ But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:9-16).   The Lord said these words as a parable, “and when they heard it they said, ‘Certainly not!’” (Luke 20:16), meaning that they understood the analogy and that it applied to them, and that the vinedressers were those thieves and robbers. It is as if they understood what they were doing, and so they said “certainly not!” But as for Him, “He looked at them and said, ‘What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone’? Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.’ And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people — for they knew He had spoken this parable against them” (Luke 20:17-19).   How does this parable apply to the scribes and pharisees? The vineyard is the Church of the New Testament: the Lord has chosen His people, set them apart, taught them, trained them, and granted them all the commandments and teachings and promises and oaths so that they would be the chosen people of God. So this is the vineyard. He showed them the way, the path of blessing, and the cursed path [which is] the path of sin. He gave them many examples, worked goodness for them, and freed them from lowliness and slavery by the hand of Moses the Arch-prophet. When He went with them to the wilderness, God would speak with them and they would hear Him, to the extent that they would be afraid ( see Exodus 20:18-20). And every day, they would see God in the figure of the pillar of cloud going before them by day and a pillar of fire guiding them by night (Exodus 13:21-22). They saw Moses when he descended from the mountain with his face full of light such that no one was able to look at him [after] he had spent forty days and nights speaking to the Lord (Exodus 34:29-35). They also experienced how all of the commandments which the Lord sent to them were all helpful and greatly beneficial to them. This is the vineyard which He planted.   The subject of the vineyard is found in the Old Testament: the Lord also spoke of the vineyard which is the house of Israel. Of course, what is meant by this is not that the vineyard is the house of Israel, and that since Israel did not obey and became divided and scattered, and that the story of Israel ended, that the vineyard has also ended. No. The vineyard is the people of God, or the Church of God. In the Old Testament it was handed over to the vinedressers who were the Levites, the priests, the scribes, the leaders of the faith, and the elders. So these vinedressers received the vineyard, and it is known that when someone goes to rent a field, garden, or vineyard, they are supposed to look after it and work in it for the sake of its owner, and to give an account for this work that was stewarded to him — an income or wage. He receives the vineyard, cultivates it and eats bread from it, but he must also offer from the vineyard, to the owner of the vineyard, from its fruits and the income of the vineyard in which he works. It was an obligation for them to offer fruit to the owner of the vineyard. The fruit, of course, is holiness and good works, or the works that conform to the Law, rules, [and] teachings [] which the Lord gave to them.   The one who toiled in the planting and work of the vineyard is the Lord. Of course, it says here “a certain man planted a vineyard” in symbolism — the man who planted the vineyard is God the Father; “planted a vineyard” is the Church of the Old Testament; “leased it to vinedressers” who are the scribes, priests, elders and Levites. Then, it says he traveled “for a long time” and waited many eons for this vineyard, every now and then sending a prophet — and it was known that they killed the prophets in the Old Testament, such that even Elijah himself said before the Lord: “[they have] torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets” ( see  1 Kings 19:10). They killed, sawed, and stoned many people: Zechariah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and many from the Old Testament. These are they about whom He spoke here when He said, “he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed.” When the prophets came and began to ask and exhort the people, saying to them “where have you gone,” they began to speak also to the priests. When we read in the prophecies of the Old Testament, such as that of Joel which says “lament, you priests; wail over the sacrifice that has been cut off and over the captivity in which you have entered” (Joel 1:13) — Israel was in captivity many times because of sin and because of their straying from the Lord; and they lost wars although they were sometimes victorious without a weapon. [For instance,] in the days of Joshua, once Joshua became the leader after Moses, they walked around a village and destroyed it, or a city and destroyed it, knocking down Jericho by their shouting — saying that the war is for the Lord — and as they went around the city, they were just shouting, screaming, and praising the Lord, and so the walls were destroyed ( see  Joshua 6). But then when they stood in great wars against small villages, they lost because they had forsaken the Lord. When they held fast to the Lord, He would always deliver them. The prophets would always reproach them, saying to them “Why are you forsaking the Lord?” So when the prophets would reproach them, they would persecute the prophets. He sent to them one prophet and a second and a third from the men of the Old Testament — the men of God — but they “beat him and sent him away empty-handed.” And here it says “Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also,” and more than this, they “treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed” or “shamefully treated.” “And again he sent a third,” and alongside the beating and humiliation, they “wounded him also and cast him out” and expelled him also.   What does this mean? If we stop here for a moment, we find that the owner of the vineyard is insistent that there be fruit in the vineyard. He would not relent until this vineyard, which He intended to bear fruits, must bring forth fruits. He forgave them several times with the messengers whom he sent, and he forgave them with the hope that they would awaken and realize that his will is that all “are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” ( see  1 Timothy 2:4). The will of God is that there must be spiritual fruit: there must be godliness, holiness, righteousness, obedience to the commandment, adherence to the Law, and behavior according to the Lord’s charges. This is the insistence of the Lord, that there must be fruit in the vineyard.   []   [recording skips]   []   He sowed the seeds and he will return to look for the fruit of the seeds. Here, it is not saying that he sowed seeds, but the parable is that he planted a vineyard, which is a very different stage than merely planting seeds: he has thrown and planted the seeds, grown them, watered them, and is now waiting for the fruits. He has done everything himself and has merely entrusted it to the oversight of the vinedressers to care for it and collect its fruits for the sake of the owner of the vineyard.   [Now] see the persistence of God for the salvation of mankind. So “the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do?’” He is not worried about those who were killed and humiliated, or that they have dishonored him personally, or that they have prevented the fruits that he wants for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He is rather concerned that this vineyard not be ruined — it must bring forth fruit. He said, “‘What shall I do?’ I will send my beloved son.” “They have disrespected those whom I have sent, and I have to solve this problem, so I will send my beloved son, because when they see my beloved son, they will be embarrassed in knowing that he is the owner of profit and the owner of the vineyard.” “But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’” This reveals the ingratitude of the Church of the Old Testament, or the ingratitude of the Jews, Hebrews, scribes, and elders whom Christ came and rebuked in Matthew saying “woe to you, scribes and pharisees” ( see Matthew 23); [] all of these woes applied to them because their hearts did not move at all, but they rather dared to seize the owner of the vineyard to kill him.   We realize here that insolence has reached an extensive degree in those evil people. According to the parable, they saw the only son and said “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” Has anyone ever seen a servant brought to serve in a house to work and receive a wage at the end of the day, go on to kill the master of the house in order to inherit his house? Does any servant inherit from his master? Does any servant get rid of the owner of the house, considering himself entitled — see the evil that they are living in: “let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” By what law? Neither a secular law, nor a moral law, nor a spiritual law gives them the right to inherit this inheritance. But this shows that avarice and greed [] usurp this stewarded property, the vineyard, and made this vineyard their own property. So because of the extent to which they took possession of these fruits and harvested them and took them to themselves, they put in their minds, because of the extent of the evil in which they lived, that this was rightfully theirs and no one else’s. So [because of] their darkened minds and their thoughts that were full of evil and selfishness, when they saw the son, they said “behold this is the heir, come let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.” So they “took him outside the vineyard and killed him” and this of course is the Lord Jesus Christ alluding to Himself in this parable. That this is the Son!   And when He speaks and says “when the vinedressers saw him, they said ‘this is the heir, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours,’” [this is] because they saw that when Christ spoke and preached the people and spoke to the people, all the people began to follow Him. So they became scared about themselves and their authority. So much so that the high priest said “You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!” (John 12:19). [] And in the end, the high priest, with foolishness and ignorance, said “let him die!” “…it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). He did not understand that he was uttering a prophecy, but he was expressing the hate that was within him and the hate that was in the shepherds and judges of the Old Testament who led the people — the evil Levites.   And truly “they took him outside the vineyard,” and at this time Christ had not been killed [and] had not been crucified. “They took him outside the vineyard and killed him.” He was warning them regarding what was in their hearts. And here, in this parable, the Lord was uncovering the past and the present and what would occur in the future also. So He said “what will the owner of the vineyard do with them?” The owner of the vineyard is still insistent, because He desires fruit from this vineyard. So He said, “he will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”   If this parable was a general parable given for warning or teaching or preaching, they would have merely heard it and said “what is He saying?,” “how do we understand [it]?,” [] “what does He mean?,” and one would say “He means this or that.” But because they understood every word, because the Old Testament is full of parables in which God addresses the vineyard and says, “What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4). “I planted a vineyard of a choice sort and built for it a fence and built a winepress in it and built for it a tower and set guards over it, and asked of it that it would produce good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes” ( see Isaiah 5:2) . [1]  These words are often found in the Old Testament, so when He speaks of the vineyard, their ears are open. So they understand everything [He is saying] but are acting ignorant.   So when He said “what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others,” they understood that He was saying this about them, so they said “certainly not!” [That is,] “far be it from us.” They were saying “far be it from us.” “Far be it from us” that He would come and destroy them and take the vineyard and bestow it to ones who are faithful.   But what about what you are doing, is it evil or not? The fact that you have stolen the vineyard from the owner of the vineyard, is this not evil? You have considered what you were doing to be good. The standards of measurement in your minds have become darkened, O priests or trustees or Levites of the Old Testament, and you considered the vineyard to be your own personal property, and that when it is taken from you and given to its [rightful] owners, this is evil, so you say, “far be it from us.” And when you kill the son of the owner of the vineyard, is this not evil? And when you kill his servants, is this not evil? And when you take possession of the vineyard and do not give its fruit to its owner, is this not evil? They did not see any of this to be evil, but they considered it evil for this authority to be taken from them and given to others.   Of course, when they said “certainly not!,” they did not say “certainly not!” as in “far be it from us to kill someone” [or] “far be it from us to participate in a crime” [or] “perhaps they were thieves and wicked but let them not be criminals and murderers.” But they did not say these things. They said “certainly not for the vineyard to be taken from us for the sake of our portion and that of our children.”   This shows [] those priests and those laborers or servants, who served the Church of the Old Testament, that their eyes saw the benefit of the service to be an earthly benefit. And this is among the most fearful things, my beloved, in the service over all the ages and eras — that the service is transformed into a trade or the service is transformed into a personal interest in which the servant, or the trustee, thinks that this is a post for him or a position for him to live by, not understanding that in the first instance, he is coming to labor and to offer fruit to the kingdom of heaven or to the owner of the vineyard who is God. So once the vision strays, or the vision of the servant or slave or vinedresser or laborer deviates from this truth, he begins to fear lest this parable apply to him such that instead of being in the vineyard of the Lord laboring for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, he instead labors in his own stolen vineyard which will inevitably be restored to the owner of the vineyard and for which he will give a difficult account.   So their hearts were occupied with personal interests, and here Ezekiel and Jeremiah and the Old Testament prophets spoke of the shepherds who cared for themselves and left the sheep and slaughtered the fattened calf and ate and drank from the produce of the sheep and destroyed it, and did not offer to its owner the account of the stewardship. This shows the outcome of those who prefer their own personal interests to that of God.   This is with respect to the service and with respect to shepherding and with respect to the vineyard.   Of course, as we continue in the parable, He said “he will destroy the vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.” The Church does not die due to the corruption of those who are set upon her, but the Church is transferred — or the service of God or the kingdom of God on earth is transferred — from hand to hand while God watches over His Church. It cannot perish and cannot be ended or stopped because of a minority that is corrupt or domineering or authoritarian. But God is able, at the proper time, to transfer it into the hands of the faithful about whom the Holy Bible says: “shepherds after my own heart” (Jeremiah 3:15). To shepherd the sheep and shepherd the flock with honesty, watchfulness, nurturing, and care.   So He has transferred this shepherding and this Church in the New Testament to the Church of Christ — the Christian Church — and delivered it to the Apostles and the Disciples. And from that time, He truly transferred it to those vinedressers. And of course, the shepherding of the New Testament differs entirely from the shepherding of the Old Testament, because He considered that all who came to follow Him must follow [His example] or imitate Him. If the owner of the vineyard did not have compassion on his only-begotten son, but gave his only-begotten son so that the vineyard might be rooted and fruitful and bear good fruit, then all the servants and laborers who follow Him in the Church of the New Testament have before their eyes Christ as the example of the manner by which the shepherds must live in the New Testament.   For this reason, we hear in most of the eras and most of the times and ages that have passed over the leadership of the Church, how much the shepherd, in all ranks and levels of responsibility in the Church, watches over the sheep and watches over the flock and serves the flock with honesty and uprightness and also if it comes to him giving his life, many were martyred because they were entrusted with the service of the flock and the service of the Church. Many examples — Peter, the twelve, Paul, the martyrs of the first and second and third centuries. Many examples of the Christian leaders who were subjected — and until this day and until yesterday and this morning continue to be subjected — to humiliation and harshness and wounding for no reason besides their watchfulness over the Church and her vitality. And all of us read and hear how much the newspapers are libeling and defaming the Church. Because this age is considered among the ages of revitalization in our Church in this generation and in this modern era. How many churches have opened and how many people have come to know God and how many services are being undertaken and how many activities are being undertaken and how much God’s glory is spreading over the face of the earth. May God continue His work and bless it and cause it to grow, and how many souls know God today, and are gathered and congregated around Christ and around His Body and Blood. For this reason, when the world becomes envious over this, you find a kind of wounding and humiliation and this shows us that in the Church of the New Testament, no one is searching for his own selfish ends or his own honor but puts his honor under the Cross, and shuts his mouth as Christ about whom it is said “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). So also are all faithful servants — in the time of wounding and harshness and humiliation, they do not open their mouths and are content with looking to the Example and saying “it is enough for us to be like Christ our true shepherd, the Good Shepherd, who said about Himself: ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep’ (John 10:11).”   Until here, what has been said applies to the parable. Perhaps the hearer might say, or you may be seated here saying: “We are not shepherds, and these words are consoling and sweet and good and we have understood them, but what does it have to do with us?” Do you know that you are laborers in this vineyard? Awaken and revive! This vineyard is not only with respect to the priest and bishop and patriarch and the servants, but it is the responsibility of the flock understood from the parable. The vineyard is your life also. It is the vineyard which Christ has planted. Your life and your home — your personal life — is your vineyard. So do not forget or think that this parable does not apply to you. It applies to you and to me personally and applies to us as a community and a church and applies to us as servants and as trustees and shepherds.   So when we look at it from the perspective of applying this parable to our lives, see: “the Lord planted a vineyard.” He has given us this grace and planted His knowledge in our hearts. We who were first sinners and who did not know anything and who were far from our Lord, He has made us sons. We were evil. He has made us sons by baptism. And He has delivered to us the Holy Spirit and made us a vessel for the Holy Spirit and granted the Holy Spirit to dwell in us such that He calls us “temples of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit dwells in us” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). And we read in Galatians that the Holy Spirit has fruits. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are known and many, and include love, joy, peace, faith, gentleness, chastity, longsuffering, kindness, goodness — many fruits for the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). He who has the Holy Spirit has in him a vineyard — the vineyard of the Lord, or the kingdom of God dwelling within you ( see  Luke 17:21). So this kingdom is the vineyard.   The vineyard within you, when Jesus sends one, two, and three messengers — what are the messengers He sends? The word that is read, the word that is heard, the sermon that you hear or the tape that you hear. The word that reaches you by any means or in any way is a servant of the servants of God or one means which God sends to you to tell you “I want fruit. Where is the fruit of the Holy Spirit that is in you? You shut your ear, you toss aside the word, you neglect the sermon, you neglect the Bible, you neglect to read the word of God.” We “don’t feel like reading the Holy Bible.” None of us cares [for it], we read it for knowledge while not knowing that when we read the Holy Bible, it is a real source of blessing and consolation, [] a source of spiritual nourishment, a source of the Holy Spirit, but also a messenger from the Spirit of God — from God speaking to us to alert and bring to our recognition that we will offer an account of our stewardship and offer an account of the field we have been given or the vineyard which has been entrusted to us.   God has granted us talents and gifts, and the word of God we read in the Holy Bible is a word of warning and notice and caution that we will inevitably give [an account]. And many times we read the Holy Bible without caring, and many times it is read in our hearing while we are sleepy, and many times we hear sermons that go in one ear and out the other. While we do not know that these are all counted for us, my beloved, just as the Lord counted on those servants whom He sent and who returned empty-handed. For this reason, the Lord speaks straightforwardly in the Holy Bible, saying: “my word does not return void” (Isaiah 55:11). He has set it with a certain measure and a certain efficacy. The word of our Lord, when He utters it, the word we hear, the word our Lord grants us from the Bible or from any sermon or from any word, must not return void. Not “not return void” as in for example a hundred hear, at least two or three or five repent and return to God and confess and become good and commit to living with God. No! The meaning of “does not return void” [is] hold onto the word of God in your heart and do not permit it to return void! If you have nothing, offer even a small cake ( see  1 Kings 17:13-15). Even five loaves ( see  Matthew 14:17-18). Even the crumbs [you have]. It must “not return void” from your home, as a person. Do not look to those around you. Look to yourself. The word of God “ must  not return void.” When you hear the word of God — it says, “when you hear His voice,” the Holy Bible, “do not harden your hearts!” (Hebrews 3:15). So every word you hear is counted. You must offer something for it. It does not return void.   Tell Him, “Lord, I heard the word of today, and I offer you from today’s word that I will be awake and watchful over this vineyard.” You hear a word about purity and righteousness, you say “Lord, I heard this word and help me to try to begin to purify my senses and pay attention to my [fleshly] life so that I may live in purity.” When you hear any word, as much as you can, as much as you are able, as much as your means permit, the word of God must not return void. The Lord says “my word does not return void” and “I am watchful over my word to perform it” (Jeremiah 1:12 DARBY).   My beloved, when the Lord transmits to us His words, sometimes we forget our own vineyard and look to the vineyard of the neighbors and say “how sad, they do not have fruits” or “this one does not have fruit” or “this one is bad” or “this one has spoiled” or “this one has thorns” or “this one has sour grapes” or “the foxes or crows have eaten this one.” What have you done with your vineyard? Some are even far-sighted and say “what about those who are not Christians, what is their fault?” [] Do not waste your time over [such matters]! Pay attention to what our Lord has granted you! You were born in Christianity, you are immersed in grace and you are entirely full of blessings and gifts! Do not waste your time! The vineyard entrusted to you comes with a responsibility! What have you to do with who has received and who has not? Our Lord will search for the non-Christian and knows how to deal with him and knows how to judge him and knows how to send him the word. This is His way — it is His work and His specialty. But you take heed to your own vineyard.   So you as a person are responsible for this vineyard. The Lord sends to you laborers, or the Lord sends to you servants once, twice, and thrice. And then, the Lord also, out of His tenderness, kindness, patience, and compassion on us, sends us His Only-Begotten Son. How many times does the Lord Jesus Christ Himself personally stand at your door and say “open to me! Enough! Wake up! Return from the path you are on! Enough hardness of heart! Enough sin! Enough ingratitude! Enough love of the world! Enough running after the blessings and gifts I have given you — life and health and money and talents — for the sake of your earthly life!”   The Hebrews were of this sort. They took the blessings God had granted them, over which He had made them stewards, and lived in them so as to fill and satisfy and enrich and fatten themselves, but did not trade with them for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. So they used this vineyard in a carnal, earthly way, and were therefore deprived of the kingdom of heaven. So also we, my beloved, often become preoccupied with our daily lives and are concerned with the kingdom our Lord has granted us, or the vineyard our Lord has granted us, in a carnal way. And care for the flesh is “enmity against God” (Romans 8:7). Care for the flesh is death, but care for the spirit is life, because we work for the good of the kingdom of heaven.   So the Lord sends to us Himself when we hear His voice in the word, when He offers Himself on the altar, when we hear His warnings and directions and exhortations that we turn away from sin and return and become reconciled to Him and cast away sin from our hearts and transform our hearts and transform our thoughts and transform our emotions and become reconciled and live in peace and live in love and become transformed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is incredibly precious and incredibly sweet! So we may attain it!   Believe me, because of grudges, we miss out on the kingdom of heaven. This is not my own [teaching]. It is from the Bible! Grudges prevent us from the kingdom of heaven. The Lord said: if you come to receive communion, “and there remember that your brother has something against you” (Matthew 5:23-24), do not partake of communion! You are not entitled to communion. Meaning you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven! Meaning if I die while holding a grudge against someone, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven! If I die while I am fighting [with someone], I will not enter the kingdom of heaven! If I die while there is something between me and someone else, I will not enter [the kingdom of heaven]. If I die while judging people, I will not enter the kingdom of heaven. My beloved, awaken! Because this is not cruelty, or difficulty in entering the kingdom of heaven, because the kingdom of heaven is very precious and very costly and very great! It deserves some labor from us — not to lie, not to swear, not to curse, not to hold grudges, not to judge, not to become upset with another, not to commit daily sins or impurity or evil or negligence or postpone the word of God and repentance.   For this reason, when the Lord speaks to us, let us not harden our hearts. But let us know that He is warning us because He will come one day and ask for the fruit of this vineyard. So when we hear this parable, my beloved, let us awaken, because this parable is very precious. It was uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ before His crucifixion on the Cross, and He says, as did John the Baptist, “even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. [Therefore] every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3:10). When He cuts down and throws into the fire, my beloved, He will not be cruel. Because what preceded this was the [offering] of love and tenderness and patience. He was patient. He sent one messenger in a season and another in another season and yet another in another season, and at the end He sent His beloved Son, and despite sending His beloved Son, He was not occupied with the fact that His beloved Son died as much as He is concerned with the fact that the vineyard must bear fruit. God insists that your life and my life have fruit.   And if it does not bear fruit, He will confront us in the last day and say “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4). What could there be that I have fallen short in? If our Lord stood with us today in a sort of mock trial. [] If He stands with you and me one by one today before we walk out of the door of the church, and says: “what did I fall short in doing with you? Why do you not bear fruit for the kingdom of God? What do you lack? Tell me, what did I fall short in doing with you? Did I fall short with you in sending you My word? In sending to you the Holy Spirit? In granting you the Mysteries? In granting you warnings? In granting you life and health and willpower and a mind and all means by which you could say ‘have mercy on me, Lord’ as did the sinner and the tax-collector and the right-hand thief and the adulteress. Why have you not repented?” “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?” (Isaiah 5:4).   So the one who hears the voice of the Lord and the one who hears the word of God and the one who hears the warnings and threats and promises must know and awaken not because our Lord is cruel, but because our Lord persists and insists and demands that we go to the kingdom of heaven. Look at it in this way, my beloved. He does not want us to be deprived of the kingdom. He wants us to enter the kingdom of heaven. So He requires us to be watchful and pass our daily, difficult lives in which we live, in which we find excuses and [] find ourselves unable to awaken or become invigorated or rise or pray or worship or fast or cry out to God or repent, because the kingdom is easy.   With some simple labor, we will spend eternity in glory and a kingdom indescribable! Which cannot be compared to any bodily enjoyment or pleasure! Because all bodily pleasures are petty and despicable and end with the end of the bodily life. But godly enjoyment and the pleasure of the kingdom of heaven is incomparable and inexhaustible. The human on earth — nothing satisfies him. But there, we will feel satiation, gratification, peace, reassurance, and we will feel that we are truly at rest. Here, even while someone is enjoying anything, he feels at the very least [] fearful lest he become deprived of this pleasure, because he cannot guarantee its persistence. Here, nothing is certain. But there, at the very least, there is certainty. There is no thief or anyone to take it from me or anyone to deprive me of it or anyone to remove me from the kingdom. For this reason, my beloved, the Lord persists and insists that we all have a share in the kingdom of heaven.   When we read this parable, let us pray for one another, for the sake of our souls and for the sake of the Church, so that God may always grant in every generation fruit in His vineyard, and that He might support and strengthen the shepherds or the servants or the vinedressers, that they may be faithful until the last breath.   To our God be glory in His Church now and forever. Amen.   — [1] Fr. Moussa is reciting this verse from memory. — The sermon, in its original Arabic, is available here . Fr. Moussa El-Gohary was born on March 5, 1935, in el-Minya, Egypt, and was ordained to the priesthood on May 23, 1980 at the hands of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory. He served as a parish priest at St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in el-Manial, Cairo, Egypt, before being sent by Pope Shenouda III, in December 1990, to St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, Massachusetts, USA, to serve as that parish's first permanent priest. Following over three decades of faithful ministry to that community, and many others in the United States and abroad, Fr. Moussa reposed in the Lord on November 5, 2021. This homily was translated by Beshoy Armanios, a member of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Natick, MA, and a lifelong disciple of Fr. Moussa El-Gohary. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in Pharmacology at the University of Connecticut. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

In the Christian understanding, the concept of joy is thoroughly rooted in the message of the Gospel, and its significance is elevated in its identification as a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Interestingly, the association of the Virgin Mary with joy became popularized during the early modern period (1400-1800 A.D.), when all major sects of Christianity — the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic Churches — came to place an especially great emphasis on venerating the blessed Mother of God, viewing her through the lens of joy. Of the 1,071 available Marian stories from this historical period, [1]  192 (constituting 17.9%) [2]  directly use the words joy  or rejoice , suggesting a deliberate association. In analyzing the stories in the Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary Project (PEMM) wherein the Virgin Mary is associated with joy, a pattern emerges: the blessed Virgin is alluded to as either the embodiment of joy or its bestower. Indeed, this medieval association of the Virgin Mary with joy remains especially relevant today, permeating historical, social, and cultural contexts, as Christians today, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, strive to establish a personal relationship with Mary, who, by virtue of being the Mother of God, is also the mother of the Church. In such an analysis, it becomes necessary to distinguish between happiness  and joy , especially as both terms are often used interchangeably in colloquial language. Both concepts, while related, have significantly distinct meanings: happiness is associated with happenings , while joy  transcends and permeates circumstance. In other words, happiness  comes from the outside-in while joy comes from the inside-out. An illustrative PEMM example, that of ID#60, describes a woman who is said to have “rejoiced joyfully” although “they beat her with rods until her blood poured out like water.” Undoubtedly, encountering physical abuse is not something that would bring a person happiness, which is why the author opts instead to use the term joy  — a completely different concept. This notion is further exemplified in the PEMM Marian story database as a whole: the word happy  is only mentioned 15 times in all translated stories, few of which are related to the Virgin Mary personally. The use of the word joy  over happiness thus signifies that the authors of these stories were familiar with the conceptual differences between the two terms, especially in light of the framework of Christian thought. The Historical Context of Marian Stories A common expression in many of the relevant Marian stories is “ rejoiced with great joy” — an emphasis on joy even when joy is already being expressed. Such insistence points to joy as a spiritual commodity worth striving for. When the PEMM Marian stories are put into their historical, social, and cultural contexts, we see why the authors and audience alike desired joy. While the PEMM database contains stories with attestations that span from 1375 A.D. to the present day, most of the accounts therein first appeared between 1400 and 1600 A.D. This, however, does not mean that these stories did not exist before these dates, but rather that they were formally documented in writing at these points in time. Given that most of these manuscripts are Ethiopian, we will focus on the Ethiopian context in which they were written. In the fifteenth century, Ethiopia was ruled by the Zagwe dynasty. This period was known for its cultural and religious vibrancy in the form of literature, paintings, and church architecture. This productivity birthed the idea of artistic expression in Ethiopian culture, one of the fruits of which being Marian manuscripts. It is no mystery why such cultural expression brought great joy: oral stories now bore the fruit of literacy and illustration. In the sixteenth century, however, the Solomonic dynasty replaced the Zagwe dynasty, resulting in a period of political and social conflict. During this time, Ethiopia began to cultivate ties with European nations. This era of conflict in Ethiopian history developed in its citizens a yearning for joy as defined in Christian thought. Marian stories continued to be written and developed, with some also finding their origins in Europe given Ethiopia’s developing relationship with European powers. Thus, joy was relayed through Marian stories as a means of bringing comfort to their audience. Mary as the Embodiment of Joy In many Marian stories, the Virgin Mary is alluded to and described as the embodiment of joy — joy being a defining characteristic of her essence. Thus, Mary, as a vessel of joy, offers important insights into what  joy is. Through the Virgin Mary, the embodiment of joy, the characteristics of joy are made evident. In the case of ID#29, joy radiates. In this story, the Virgin Mary grants a woman a son after she promised to offer a feast in Mary’s name and baptize him at one of the landmarks the Holy Family visited while in Egypt. While the son was being baptized, he was dropped into the spring. Upon being rescued, the boy recalls that a beautiful woman caught him, saving him. In response, the family and those gathered at the spring cried out to the Virgin Mary saying, “you are [the] fullness of joy and gladness, blessed are you among women.” Here, the word fullness  may be substituted for the word embodiment . As a result of her saving the young boy, Mary becomes  joy for those who experienced this miracle. This not only emphasizes the association between Mary and joy, but also the understanding of Mary as the mother of all who put on Christ: the believers. The characters in the account, by experiencing this joyful miracle, form an intimate relationship with Mary who rescues their loved ones. Moreover, this personal relationship with Mary extends to a further intimacy with joy.    Along with depicting the radiance of joy, in the Virgin Mary and the PEMM accounts of the believers’ encounters with her, joy is also found to be beautiful . In the story of ID#35, the author reports an “abounding joy in the appearance of [the Virgin Mary’s] face.” Subsequently, we find a relationship between appearance and sentiment: the beauty of the Virgin Mary is correlated with her joy. This notion is further expressed in ID#68, which tells that a man named George had an “exceedingly great joy that filled his heart through the beauty and sweet odor of Our Lady Mary.” Again, joy is correlated with beauty, and, in this case, an aroma, or “sweet odor,” as well. The engagement of the senses is emphasized in both of these examples. Both accounts portray a relationship with joy and the sense of sight, and the second story also draws on the sense of smell. As a result, we learn that joy is not only experienced emotionally, but physically as well. This correlation is further demonstrated in ID#181, wherein a monk encounters “the sweetness of [the Virgin Mary’s] joy.” Thus, joy is also sweet , implying its relationship to taste. Ultimately, the Virgin Mary is not simply an embodiment of joy in the emotional sense, but also in the physical sense. Hitherto, joy has been found to be radiating, beautiful, and sweet. In ID#35-C, the author uses a simile to compare the experience of joy, expressed in relation to the Virgin Mary, to being in heaven. Thus, we learn that joy is heavenly . He writes, “to them it is like being in Heaven because of the joy that they find at that time, through the apparition of the Theotokos.” The characteristic of joy as heavenly further associates it with the healing  and righteous  qualities of heaven. In the book of Revelation, the heavenly city is described as having a tree with leaves that “were for the healing of the nations.” [3]  In the prior chapter, John the Beloved also discusses healing, writing: “He [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” [4]  Moreover, Peter the Apostle writes: “But according to His promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” [5]  The heavenliness of joy emphasizes its ability to permeate circumstance, and having the Virgin Mary as its embodiment in this context is most fitting. Just as heaven is referred to as the place where God resides, the Logos, a Hypostasis of the Triune God, took flesh from and resided in the womb of the Virgin Mary. [6]  Thus, the relationship between joy and Mary is a quintessential conceptualization of heaven. [7] Ultimately, through the Virgin Mary as the embodiment of joy, we understand joy as having (but not being limited to) the characteristics of radiation, beauty, sweetness, and heavenliness. Notably, these characteristics are not dependent on external factors, but are rather in and of themselves both splendid and yearned for. Mary as the Bestower of Joy Thus far, the Virgin Mary has been established as the embodiment of joy, and, as this embodiment, she reveals and exemplifies the characteristics of joy. Delving deeper into the Marian stories that mention joy, one also observes the endowment of joy through the person of the Virgin Mary. In this way, the Mother of God becomes the bestower of joy.   The Virgin Mary — the mother of the Church by virtue of being the Mother of Him who is the head of the Church — grants joy to the believers as members of the Church. She acts uniquely and personally with each of the faithful, as her children. For some, she bestows joy by seeking justice on their behalf, while for others, she grants joy simply through her presence. By forming an intimate relationship with her venerators, the Virgin Mary becomes recognized as someone who is closer than expected. By emphasizing the intimacy of Mary, the Marian stories we have been discussing portray a message that proclaims joy as being within reach. The Virgin Mary, possessing joy as an inherent characteristic, is able to bestow joy because it is an essential part of her being. In ID#44, the Virgin Mary seeks vengeance for a group of Christians at a monastery in Egypt who were robbed by a group of Arabs after a prayer service. After realizing what had happened, a priest threatens Mary, stating that he will no longer pray in her sanctuary if she does not return the possessions of the church-goers. In response, Mary appeared to the Arabs, blinded and paralyzed them, and commanded them to return the possessions. Once the people heard of her intercession, they described the Virgin Mary as the one who “pour[s] out joy.” In this expression, one perceives not only how the blessed Virgin embodies joy, but also her generous outpouring of joy. To further illustrate this point, one can easily recognize that a fountain is able to pour out  water only because it is full of  water. A fountain could not be a fountain without water, and as such, water is necessary to the very being of a fountain. The relationship of joy to the person of the Virgin Mary is similar: she is able to pour out  joy only because joy is of her essence. Furthermore, the phrase “ pours out”  also signifies the graciousness and multitude of joy that Mary bestows: for those monks for whom the Virgin advocated, her actions constituted more than a mere bestowal, but an outpouring of joy. Since joy forms part of Mary’s intrinsic character, she is able to confer it freely. Further, Mary’s ability to freely bestow joy fulfills the promise of joy given to her: “You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy.” [8]  In ID#71, the Virgin Mary intercedes on behalf of a queen who requested that Mary allow her to have a son, promising that he will be raised righteously. The Virgin Mary accepts her supplications, intercedes on her behalf, and God grants her a son. At this child’s baptism, all those present marveled as a great light shined over the child after he was blessed by the patriarch. Once the queen returned home with her son, they held a feast and venerated the Virgin Mary saying, “Because of you, we have joy in exchange for our grief and delight in exchange of our sadness.” Interestingly, this concept of joy in exchange for sadness, not unique to this story, echoes the Lord’s promise of joy out of sorrow. It is not the ability to turn sorrow into joy that is exemplary in this Marian story, but rather, the instrument through which this occurs — Mary herself. The author of ID#71 was likely familiar with this saying of Jesus and felt that the fulfillment of this promise was the Virgin Mary, hence the language used — “because of you [Mary].” Here, the character of Mary is twofold: she is the bestower of joy as well as the fulfillment of the promise of joy.   Following this theme of Mary as the fulfillment of joy, in ID#27, the author describes the Virgin Mary as the one “who brings joy and consolation.” The phrase who brings is interesting in this context, allowing for a multifaceted interpretation: the Virgin can be understood here as the messenger of the joy of God, as well as the embodiment of joy who thereby possesses the power to bestow joy at her discretion. If we follow the teachings of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, then it would be more appropriate to address the Virgin Mary as the messenger of joy. However, the language used in this story, as well as in many others, does not suggest this notion to be the understanding of the authors. Rather, the authors resonate with the idea that the Virgin Mary is the embodiment of joy and has authority in and of herself. It is important to note here the difficulty in translation, which may lend itself to misinterpretation. Irrespectively, these stories cannot necessarily be regarded as historically or theologically accurate; primarily, their authorship was commissioned to become a source of comfort, inspiration, and encouragement for the faithful, especially as they experienced the sociopolitical injustices that plagued the Ethiopians in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In light of this perspective, one understands the immersion in and repurposing of many Biblical stories relating the concept of joy to the Virgin Mary, who is dearly beloved to the faithful. In the PEMM Marian stories, the Virgin Mary is therefore established as the embodiment of Biblical joy, even having authority to bestow joy to the living faithful. However, the method by which Mary offers and bestows joy is not consistent or generalizable. Rather, her relationship with each individual Christian is unique, offering further insights into the intimacy of Mary and her joy. For instance, in ID#191, a youth, after kissing the hand of the Virgin Mary, “wept from joy.” In this story, joy is bestowed through an intimate physical connection. In ID#256, when Mary visited her relative Elizabeth during their pregnancies, Elizabeth tells her: “When I heard your voice in greeting, the child leapt joyfully and happily in my womb.” [9] Here, joy is described as being bestowed through the hearing of Mary’s voice. In ID#35, upon seeing the Virgin Mary, “joy came upon” those who asked for her supplications that they may see a family member who had passed away. Here, joy comes upon those who simply see Mary. In these examples, we see the Virgin Mary granting joy through physical intimacy, speech, and sight, presenting to readers the understanding that they likewise, by establishing a relationship with the Virgin Mary and the departed saints, can encounter joy through this system of ecclesial relation. In this way, joy ceases to be a far-fetched concept and becomes a way of life that can be experienced through physical intimacy, delicacy of speech, and delight in sight. Ultimately, the Virgin Mary, as the bestower of joy, acts uniquely and personally with each of her believers at the level where they are able to experience her and share in her joy. Significance & Conclusion Whether as the embodiment or bestower of joy, the Virgin Mary’s association with joy serves as a source of comfort, hope, and inspiration for believers. The unique relationship of joy to the person of the Virgin Mary is easily perceptible. The Marian stories of the PEMM project do well to illustrate and emphasize Mary’s joy and reflect her faith and complete trust in God and His promises. It is important to note that these Marian stories were, and continue to be, part of the Ethiopian Orthodox culture and tradition; they are not merely words fabricated and commissioned for the sake documentation, but were rather authentic, personal, and living depictions of the Virgin Mary. As such, the personal qualities of these stories shine through the written accounts: discussing joy in such a context not only portrays the journey of Christian life as the cultivation of spiritual fruit, but also presents the Virgin Mary as the mother of the faithful, accompanying, encouraging, and comforting them — indeed, granting them a joyful countenance and exuberant endurance — as they venture deeper into their lives in Christ her Son and through any of life’s difficult circumstances.   — [1] Approximately one-third of these Marian stories are translated in the Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary Project (PEMM). [2] Due to the gap in translations available, the actual percentage is likely much higher. [3]  Revelation 22:2 [4]  Revelation 21:4 [5]  1 Peter 3:13 [6] “The One of the Trinity, one in essence with the Father, when He saw our lowly state and our bitter bondage, He bowed the heaven of heavens and came to the womb of the Virgin. He became Man like us, except for sin only” (The Thursday Θεοτοκια: 8.1-2). [7] In the hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the titles that are given to the Virgin Mary is “the new heaven.” For instance: “…This is Mary, the new heaven on earth, from whom shines on us the Sun of Righteousness” (The Thursday Θεοτοκια 9.3). [8] John 16:20 [9]  See also  Luke 1:41-44 — Bibliography Wallis Budge. “ID 27: Scete miracles: Maryam from Dǝfrā, a child who wanted to receive Communion but was shut up in the house when her family went to church, goes to heaven..” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/27 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Ekaterina Pukhovaia. “ID 29: Mǝnetä Diyaqon cycle: The wife of Joseph from Mǝneta Diyāqon, who had no male children..” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/29 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Wendy Laura Belcher and Ekaterina Pukhovaia. “ID 35: Däbrä Metmaq miracles: The annual apparition of Saint Mary at Däbrä Metmaq with Christ's promises.” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/35 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Rowan Williams. “ID 35-c: Däbrä Metmaq miracles: The annual apparition of Saint Mary at Däbrä Metmaq when the bishop asks her to give her blessing…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/35-c . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Blaine Kebede. “ID 44: The priest, Rizqallah, recovers things stolen from pilgrims…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/44 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Blaine Kebede. “ID 60: The Arab woman who entrusted her jewels to a Christian for safekeeping…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/60 . Last modified: 5.9.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 68: Saint Mary appears to the martyr, Giyorgis Haddis, in prison…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/68 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Jeremy Brown & Dawit Muluneh with Bret Windhauser. “ID 71: Romeya cycle? When Sefengeya, wife of a different King of Romeya, King Masfeyanos, prays to have a child before the icon of Saint Mary, the icon inclines its head; Sefengeya then conceives Yeshaq (Abba Garima).” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/71 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 181: The monk custodian of the church who prayed to see Saint Mary…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/181 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Wallis Budge. “ID 191: The only son of a king who dedicated himself to Saint Mary…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/191 . Last modified: 5.8.2023. Augustine Dickinson. “ID 256: Saint Basil cycle: Saint Mary, together with Saints Irene and Sophia, appears to Saint Basil and tells him where her icon is buried…” In  Täˀammərä Maryam (Miracle of Mary) Stories , edited by Wendy Laura Belcher, Jeremy Brown, Mehari Worku, and Dawit Muluneh. (Princeton: Princeton Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Egyptian Miracles of Mary project). http://pemm.princeton.edu/story-detail/256 . Last modified: 5.8.2023.   — Mark Dawod serves as a Reader at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Jersey City, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Princeton University and a current student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, pursuing a career in medicine. This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for "Healing & Justice: The Virgin Mary in African Literature & Art," offered by Dr. Wendy Belcher in Spring 2023 at Princeton University. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

A Homily of His Eminence Metropolitan Kyrillos of Milan of blessed memory delivered during the Revival services held during the Fast of the Virgin Mary. Year unknown.  [In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy] Spirit: One God. Amen.  From the Epistle of our teacher Saint Paul to the Corinthians, may his blessings be upon us all. Amen.  “Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.” [1]   Glory be to the Holy Trinity: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  From our mother, the Virgin Mary, I ask that she might pray for us all, [] that we might complete the time of our estrangement on earth with one characteristic, or one virtue, from the virtues in her.  In the life of the Virgin Mary, [there is] much speech and also much silence. Speech in the life of the Virgin Mary [is] a sermon and a benefit for all. And silence in the life of the Virgin Mary [is] an opportunity for prayer and contemplation.  We say to the Virgin Mary in the praises: “the select incense of your virginity […] is greater than the incense of the seraphim and the cherubim, O Mary the Virgin.” [2] The incense of the Virgin Mary — the incense of the purity in her and her chastity — is better than the seraphim and the cherubim who sit around the fiery cherubic throne praising the Lord.  And we also say to her in the praises: “Hail to the second heaven whom the Father has made a place of rest for His only Son.” [3] A second heaven. And David the Prophet says: “glorious things have been spoken of you, O city of God.” [4] Meaning they likened the Virgin Mary to the second heaven, or they likened her to the city of God. She has reached this exalted spiritual level because of the purity that dwells in her and because of her complete virginity.  For this reason, we deal with the Virgin Mary  out of love and the desire to possess purity and holiness [], and we open our hearts to God that He might appear embodied in our inward parts and our actions and our behavior, just as she opened her heart to God so Christ appeared incarnate in her inward parts.  What is the incense that is found in the Virgin Mary, and why is the incense that is found in the Virgin greater than the incense of the cherubim and seraphim?  The natural incense that we see in the church is a mixture of myrrh and oud and cinnamon. [5] A mixture that produces for us the beautiful fragrance. In the world of the saints, there is also a mixture that produces a precious fragrance — a mixture of love with a mixture of humility, with some tenderness, with some patience, with some endurance, with some difficulties and trials produces the precious fragrance.  And the fragrance that was in the Virgin Mary was quite powerful, to the point that Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, by merely inhaling this fragrance, found rest, and John also found rest in the womb of Elizabeth. The Book tells us that Elizabeth told the Virgin Mary: “as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” [6] Meaning inside, John rejoices by merely inhaling the fragrance, and she felt the peace in her ears from the fragrance of the Virgin — the precious fragrance that is obtained from the highest through purity.  And as they say to Abba Antony in the praises: “the incense of his virtues gladdened our souls.” [7] If one would like to gladden another on earth, he does not gladden him with material things or by outward dealings, but rather gladdens him with the virtue that is in him. “The incense of his virtues gladdened our souls, like the fragrance of blossoming amber emanating from Paradise.” [8] And the fragrance of Abba Antony was just like the fragrance of the Virgin — they [both] had from the pure fragrance of Christ. His fragrance emanated and spread and [] was able to penetrate the emptiness and enter into the whole world and captivate the world, and all the people were able to smell the fragrance of Christ through Abba Antony and through the account of his life. And despite the sweet fragrance that was in Abba Antony an apparent fragrance, there are those who have the sweet fragrance which [only] our Lord knows well.  We in the world can exude various fragrances and capture the people’s attention through our fragrances. And a person may have a fragrance which from without appears to be ecclesial, but “God cannot be mocked” [9] and “God does not tempt anyone.” [10] May God inhale this fragrance and identify this fragrance.  In the days of Abba Antony, Abba Antony thought that there was no one with his fragrance — that no one ever had a similar fragrance. So the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: “O Antony, you have not attained what a tailor in Alexandria has attained.” A tailor found in Alexandria who pursued his craft and lived in the world, but who had a distinct fragrance — every morning he would say “I am the only sinner in the world,” and would only think of his own sins and evils, yet in the sight of God he was preferable to Abba Antony. [11] We have a fragrance which we have all received in the font of baptism. No one has entered the font of baptism without receiving the fragrance about which our teacher Paul the Apostle says that “we are the sweet fragrance of Christ,” [12] but the putrid aroma in us is caused by our mingling with the world and the world’s entry and invasion into our souls. [It] has come to rule over the heart and the feelings, emotions, and senses. [It] has come to rule over the entire being. And so the person is found to limp between two teams. Therefore, the sweet fragrance has been lost.  Where is the fragrance the child received in the font of baptism? See the image of victory — when the child emerges from the font of baptism and the angels encircle the church — the earthly angels encircling the church — with joy and victory, and [the child] wears the red ribbon as evidence of victory and is crowned with heavenly crowns on earth. All of this is gone! Gone! Because we have mingled with the world.  Our teacher Saint Paul says: “I am the temple of the holy God.” “The temple of the holy God” means that God has come to dwell in us from within. God, who is seated upon the fiery cherubic throne, emptied Himself for the sake of dwelling in every soul. He also tells us: “you are the temple of the holy God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you.” [13] How can the Spirit of God dwell in us, and how can we be the temple of the holy God, and then become divested of the sweet fragrance of Christ?  Where is the fragrance of Christ in us? Where is the fragrance — the precious fragrance, where has it gone?  In the Old Testament, the lamp-stand of the Holies was always lit — night and day — testifying that the word of God is light. And at the altar of the sacrifice — the golden altar — the incense was placed night and day to declare the persistence of petitions. And I, as a human — the temple of the holy God — must find within me these two requirements: the lamp-stand of the Holies — the word of God — as a light within me, and the second thing is that I, with continuous prayers offered at all times, obtain the divine goodwill and preserve [my]  purity. As one of the holy fathers says: “blessed is the one who sleeps with Your Holy Name in his mouth. The devils will flee from approaching him, and will not find in him an entry point or a dwelling place.” “Blessed is the one who sleeps” — despite his sleep, the lamp-stand is functioning, operational [], and lit. A hidden prayer. Asleep but with a watchful heart. Speaking to God while he sleeps.  And even if a person works and sweats and comes to know the sweat of the toil of the flesh, with God [this is] preferred to the fragrance of incense and perfumes if it is done for God’s sake. As one of our fathers the saints told us: “the fragrance of the toil of the flesh is preferred to incense and perfumes.” If I become tired for God’s sake, if I exert effort for God’s sake in order to preserve the purity and cleanness of this divine temple, with God this is an exalted status — a pure status.  “You are the temple of the holy God.” The revival we are experiencing now must be within us. Always. Feeling that I am a temple of the holy God. “Temple of the holy God” means my actions, my words, my deeds, and my inner life. The curriculum of my life. My behavior during the day and in the middle of the night — in secret and apparent. My intentional and unintentional behavior — complete [], mature, witnessing that I am a temple for Him. A dwelling place for God.  If a person lives in this manner always, his appearance can sermonize others without words. See the chaplet, when someone brings it and places it in the light. Once the chaplet is removed from the light, it still has the features of light. While you are the temple of the holy God, and God dwells in you, the evil people inhale the sweet fragrance of Christ through you. They see dominion in you, and power. They see that you are elevated above every person bound with the bonds of sin.  You are the temple of the holy God, meaning the angels surround you — the cherubim and seraphim, the dominions and powers. God in His fullness is within you. The temple of the holy God, we transform into the temple of evil. It is impossible for Satan to possess the temple of God except with our permission []. We are the ones who allow Satan to enter and to [make himself comfortable] and to administer his kingdom from within the soul. For this reason, one of the fathers who is experienced in the spiritual life tells us: “Satan is a rope-slitter. You provide to him the bonds and he [weaves them].” A rope-slitter. He is sitting [comfortably]. You provide to him the thread and he works and [weaves]. He makes you a covering, [or] a carpet, he covers you, he puts you to sleep, he swindles you of your spirituality, but only with your permission.  When Christ descended to earth, He could not tolerate the Temple that was built with stones because it was transformed into “a den of thieves.” His dwelling was transformed into a den of thieves. What is our position if Christ enters now into each of our souls? If He enters His holy temple, which is you? What will He do? If you permit Him to enter, He will overturn the tables and drive away the merchants, and will change the order, and will utter the painful saying: “My house is called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.” [14] “A den of thieves” because I steal God’s right and God’s glory and God’s honor [from Him]. Many of us steal God’s right and His glory. Hear the Book of Revelation saying to us: “and the twenty-four elders who sit on the throne fall down . . . and cast their crowns before the One who is seated on the throne” — their crowns are not theirs, but God had granted them to them — “and cast their crowns before the One who is seated . . . saying: ‘You are worthy . . . To receive glory and honor and power.’” [15] The glory in us is Yours. The honor in us is Yours. The power we have is rightfully Yours alone.  “A den of thieves.” The temple of the holy God becomes transformed into a den of thieves.  As a temple of the holy God, remember the graces and blessings God will grant to you if you preserve this temple. And remember also the pains and tribulations and sufferings you will receive if you transform this body, and transform yourself, from the temple of the holy God into a throne for Satan. So God sent a message to the angel of the Church of Pergamos and said to him: “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith...” [16] . A beautiful message.  There is a demon near to you who is fighting to transform the temple of the holy God, which is you, into a throne for himself. He is always striving. You sleep but he does not. You might despair in your prayers to God, but he does not despair in what he desires of you. He does not know despair. The plan of Satan is clear before him and dwells in him. He seeks to destroy in any way possible. You are the temple of the holy God, but you can also become the throne of Satan.  If you desire to change your life — if you feel that you have been transformed from the temple of the holy God into the throne of Satan — if you wish to return to your original condition, you must begin with yourself. The beginning is not from without. It cannot come from a book or as someone who receives an injection in a vein or a solution. The beginning is from you, through God alone.  If an entry point brings you sin, you must insist to shut it as you know how. If a magazine causes you to stumble, rip it up. If a door opens up sin to you, refuse the sin, refuse the door, and seal this door. If a friend in whom you were misled — if a friend in whose friendship and acquaintance you are rendered poor — causes you spiritual harm, and turns the temple of the holy God in you into the throne of Satan, sacrifice and forego this friendship and know that this is not friendship. Begin with yourself.  The Satanic throne works in the soul in the negative direction, to the point that it has the ability to tranquillize the soul and put the person to sleep, and to evict from him all that is alive. To suck his life. And when the person begins to regain his consciousness, he realizes that he has lost many of his faculties — he has lost his sight, [] his hearing, [] the sweetness of the life with God, [] his purity, he has become impure, he has gone astray, he only knows the judgment of others, is obsessed with the faults of others, knows an abundance of worldly things, and Satan governs this soul. And so [] the legs are quick to run to evil, and the hands to the shedding of blood, [17] and the whole soul is absent-minded.  Let us begin through the gentle mother. The gentle mother is repentance. [] Know that there is something called repentance. Repentance is the mother of life and power to the one who is born of her. [] When we go back to see when repentance was born, we find that the beginning of repentance on earth was the moment of Adam’s fall. It was born on the day of the fall. It has breasts, and all who nurse from them will not die. It is impossible for one who has nursed from repentance to die, if he has nursed truly.  The Spiritual Elder [John Saba] tells us about [repentance] that it has made the adulterers virgins. It has transformed people from the state of adultery to the state of virginity. Freely, without charge, gratuitously. [] It has transferred the soul to a better life. A purer life for man in the heavenly things.  Let us begin through repentance. And hear the holy Bible describe the once deviant soul that was the throne of Satan and has returned to God. It says about her: “Who is this coming up from the wilderness, Leaning upon her beloved…” [18] . See the image of the person emerging from sincere confession! Luminous, leaning on Christ! His tears were wiped away by Christ [in confession]. The state of despair has been transformed into a state of hope. Death to life. Darkness to light.  “Who is this coming up from the wilderness?” It is the soul that was filled with rust. For this reason, they say about repentance that it is “a boiling pot that clarifies all who touch it” — all who are afflicted with rust. Like a piece of copper that is full of rust, when they put it in the pot and the man begins to massage it until he returns to it the original state of purity and restores it to its [original] condition.  I have rusted in the world. I rejected Christ many times on several occasions, and many times Christ came and knocked on the door of my heart, saying to me: “open up for Me. Open up for Me, My beloved. Open! I have been awake all night in order to come inside with you! To give you the precious fragrance!” And many times man refuses.   “A boiling pot that clarifies all who are afflicted with rust.”  Through repentance and through continuous prayer, I will return to my original state. The precious fragrance will be restored to me once more. They will see my fragrance and glorify the heavenly Father. David the prophet tells us: “May my prayer be set before You as incense…” [19] . So prayer is a measure of incense. The one who has been trained to pray, whose tongue reflects the state of his heart, his fragrance is truly a heavenly fragrance. “May my prayer be set before You as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.” [20]   Through prayer [we express] a persistent desire for our Lord to enter. A desire for our Lord to restore us to our original constitution. To restore my integrity. To replace my unlatched door. To grant me life.  What is behind repentance and continuous prayer is your knowledge of the value of this mystery — the mystery of the Eucharist. Your knowledge of the mystery of the Eucharist. I tell you truly, if any one of us recognized the value of this mystery, it is impossible for him to forego this place. The greatest comparison is if one of you has a particular problem, and found an opportunity to speak to one who is a president or governor or mayor — a heavyweight who can solve the issue. He would spend the entire night awake thinking, pondering, and mulling over what words he will say, what he will wear, how to win from the meeting the heart of the person [with whom he will speak].  We here before the fiery cherubic throne address God who is above every presidency and every authority and every power and every government and every name, not only in this age, but also in the age to come, as the Cyrillian Liturgy says. If you knew the value of this mystery, you would not arrive after the gospel, or at the very end in order to receive the blessing of communion and leave. You would not forego this place.  You are ready to speak to God in a matter that concerns you. A fateful issue. But no material issue is fateful. If the material could profit a man, then God would tell you: “give Me an account of your material things.” But the material profits nothing. Material things might support a king or a president, or support the rich and bring them in through the narrow door, but the material must be placed under the narrow door and they must enter through it.  While you are inside, beside the fiery cherubic throne, recognize your value. The present living sacrifice that is inside, it is for your sake. The one who is sacrificed tells you: “come and draw near to Me that you may be justified of your sins.” While you are entering absent-minded, not knowing whether the liturgy is to your liking or not, whether the priest took too long or finished too early, or whether you have work or not. These are not the emotions with which you enter near God in order to meet Him.  Do you want your fragrance to be changed? Be watchful all night [and] while you are walking in the street to enter inside, and tell our Lord: “I heard in the Song of Songs a saying about You that says: ‘While the Lord is at His table, my spikenard sends forth its fragrance’ [21] .”  My fragrance is despicable. I don’t want words. Within me is the language of the world. As for Your fragrance, O Lord, You are entirely pure, entirely holy, and holy entirely. When my despicable fragrance enters into Your fragrance, whose fragrance will appear? The fragrance that is full of purity will appear! [As for] the fragrance of defilement, the fragrance of lust, the fragrance of materialism in me, it will dissipate, disappear, and fade away. God will overcome it by His fragrance.  So as I enter, I am willing that God work. Not entering while thinking of other things outside. Think about your own case. Think about how God inhales the fragrance of a person, and through his fragrance He accepts him in Paradise. “You have the sweet fragrance of Christ.” Where has the fragrance of Christ gone [in you]? If God did not deal with us according to His wide and [loving] heart, then the person could be lost. But the love of God and His wide heart gave us Himself on the altar. Arrange yourself.  [ End of recording ] — [1] 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 [2] The Morning Doxology [3] Ibid . [4] Psalm 87:3 [5] See  Proverbs 7:17 [6] Luke 1:44 [7] Coptic Doxology of Abba Antony [8] Ibid . [9] Galatians 6:7a [10] James 1:13b [11] See  E.A. Wallis Budge (translator), The Paradise of the Holy Fathers , Volume II, Book 2.1.2 [12] 2 Corinthians 2:15 [13] 1 Corinthians 3:16 [14] Matthew 21:13 [15] See  Revelation 4:10-11 [16] Revelation 2:13 [17] See Proverbs 1:16 [18] Song of Solomon 8:5a [19] Psalm 141:2a [20] Psalm 141:2 [21] Song of Solomon 1:12 — Please find the full sermon at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHr_hGefTSQ Cover Image: A drawing of the Virgin Mary, by His Eminence Metropolitan Kyrillos of Milan of blessed memory.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.” Mark 4:1 John Cassian, an ascetic monk and writer of the fourth and fifth centuries, spent time in the Egyptian desert transmitting the stories and experiences of Egyptian monasticism to the West. [1]  His writings, composed in Latin, were quickly translated into Greek to reach an even wider audience. Specifically, some of the stories from his writings were included in the well-known  Apophthegmata , known as the Sayings of the Desert Fathers . [2]  This personality of the early Church relayed eyewitness accounts of the monastic life in Scetis , of which very little was contemporaneously documented. [3]  John Cassian’s writings on the diabolical warfare experienced in early Egyptian monasticism introduced principles and concepts that relate to various struggles impacting the psychological health of many in today’s world. The Holy Scriptures are filled with accounts of demonic attacks on many individuals throughout the Old and New Testament, including the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. [4]  Specifically, the book of Job narrates a vivid diabolic attack that led to Job losing his family and possessions. [5]  Paul the Apostle also documented the demonic oppression that he experienced, stating that a “messenger of Satan” harassed him. [6] Diabolical warfare did not cease with the accounts of the Holy Scriptures, but rather was all the more witnessed, experienced, and documented in the lives of many Egyptian Desert Fathers and Mothers; not least in the writings of John Cassian. In discussing monastic diabolical warfare, one must first begin with the founder of traditional Egyptian Monasticism, Antony the Great. In the Life of Antony, written by Athanasius the Apostolic, [7]   demonic attacks and warfare were documented in great detail. Many severe attacks were experienced by Antony, [8]  beginning firstly with his thoughts; when this was to no avail, the demons then proceeded to attack the monk physically as well. [9]  Furthermore, in the Paradise of the Holy Fathers , [10] one finds other accounts of demonic attacks against many of the monks, specifically the solitary Evagrius. [11]  A contemporary of John Cassian, Evagrius [12]  was a monastic who also wrote extensively on the prayer life and wrote volumes outlining the various snares of the devil. [13]  It is this Evagrius whose demonology was an influence on the life and writings of John Cassian. Cassian’s writings were utilized by the Rule of Saint Benedict [14] in the West. [15] Evagrius laid the foundation of monastic writings which Cassian is said to have expounded, synthesized, and relayed to the West. Cassian mingled the teachings of the East with the spirit of the West, providing a practical approach and understanding to those who may have been naïve to or unfamiliar with the idea of diabolical warfare. [16]  Thus it is said that Evagrius deserves credit, albeit indirectly, for the spread of monasticism and monastic teaching in the West through the vessel that is John Cassian. [17]  Evagrius spoke in depth regarding the mysticism of diabolical warfare, including about demons and their interaction with humans, whereas Cassian spoke in more detail with regard to vices and the warfare between the flesh and spirit of the monk. [18]  This bridge — between the demonic and the inner struggle — was relayed in Cassian’s writings. Evagrius was therefore said to be of significance to monasticism in the West. [19]  Cassian’s further expansion on Evagrius’ demonology served as the foundation of the application of principles relevant to or arising from diabolical warfare to the inner struggles of the thoughts and emotions. This formed the basis for many of the psychological ideologies that were to be formalized thereafter. Cassian was born in the middle of the fourth century, and it is unclear where his birthplace was, though some believe it to have been Gaul (present day France). [20]  He spent time in Palestine and Egypt, the latter being where he famously wrote his monastic writings that were to be transmitted to the people of Gaul. [21]  One of his writings was written to Castor, a local bishop of the region, describing the monastic system of Egypt so that it might be imitated in the West. [22]  After his time as a monastic, Cassian became a disciple of John Chrysostom, who vouched for him to be sent to Rome after his deposition. [23]  Cassian and his friend Germanus, who journeyed with him on his monastic voyage, spent close to fifteen years in the Egyptian Desert, specifically in Scetis . [24]  It is during this time that Cassian wrote his two major literary eyewitness works of the Egyptian monastic life and struggle. John Cassian’s two main literary works are The Conferences of the Desert Fathers  and The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults . [25]  In both the Conferences  and the Institutes , eight spirits or principal faults, which represent the demonic attacks that plagued the Egyptian monks, are mentioned. The Conferences consist of counsels and dialogues of specific monks, whereas the Institutes present the specifics of monastic attire, life, and prayer. Not only did the Conferences  document the wisdom of the Egyptian ascetics, but it also infused references from the Scriptures into its teaching, including the patience of Job amidst the diabolical warfare that assailed him. [26]  This is significant because Job’s diabolical encounter emerges as an example to monastics in their duel with evil and of how to properly engage in it. [27]  In his dialogue with an elder named Serapion, Cassian documents the Eight Principal Faults  as “gluttony, fornication, avarice, [28]  anger, dejection, acedia, [29]  vain glory, and pride.” [30]  Although the Conferences  discusses these spirits amidst the counsels of the Egyptian monks, it is the Institutes  that discusses each of these demons in detail. [31] Of the eight principal spirits or faults, dejection and acedia most effectively link the monastic world with today’s psychological suffering. The spirit or demon of dejection is described as one that attacks at random, and prevents the monk from having gladness of heart. [32]  It makes the monk impatient and rough with the brethren and causes him to feel angry, crushing and overwhelming him with despair. [33]  Cassian also locates the origin of dejection as being from “previous anger” or a previous “lack of gain that has not been realized.” [34]  The monk isolates himself and no longer desires to engage in discourse with others, so that Cassian labels dejection the “gall of bitterness that is in possession of every corner of their heart.” [35] Interestingly, Cassian discusses how this demonic spirit is not necessarily a result of the actions of others, but actions of the self. Cassian elaborates that one in this state should not isolate himself, but rather continue to interact with his fellow monastic brethren. This in itself is a remedy against this spirit. [36]   The beginning of healing, according to Cassian, is correcting one’s faults, which leads the monk to find peace. In its extreme form, the demon of dejection can lead one to despair of salvation. This is the demon that led to Cain’s lack of repentance [37] and Judas’ suicide. [38]  However, Cassian goes on to discuss that some dejection is acceptable and therapeutic. This is the sorrow that leads an individual to penitence for sin. [39]  Finally, he ends the relevant chapter by noting that the way to terminate devilish dejection is spiritual meditation, and keeping the mind occupied with the hope of the future. In examining this chapter of Cassian’s work, clear symptoms emerge, as well as treatment modalities for what is considered depression in the modern world. In Book X of the Institutes , Cassian begins to describe accidie, or acedia, known as the “midday demon,” [40]  as Evagrius had also done, although in more detail in specific relation to the emotions. [41]  While similar to the demon of dejection, acedia consists of the added features of apathy, sluggishness, sloth, and irritability. In naming acedia the “midday demon,” Cassian posits that these demonic attacks often occur around the sixth hour and seize the monk. Carelessness and anxiousness are the main components of acedia, as well as frequent complaining. [42]  The monk looks anxiously and often sighs at his other brethren. There are also moments where he is idle and useless for spiritual work. Cassian notes that sometimes the midday demon can manifest in different forms: sometimes one may isolate more, and in other times one may become a busy-body and seek consolation from others — an action which Cassian describes as entanglement in secular business. [43]   Manual labor and work, Cassian suggests, are a good remedy to the midday demon of acedia. One suffering from this demon should employ the words of Paul the Apostle: “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” [44]  Cassian speculates that the West is void of monasteries and monks specifically because of idleness and acedia. Acedia is, in his mind, a direct result of idleness: “a monk who works is attacked by one devil; but an idler is tormented by countless spirits.” [45]  Babai, one of the Syriac writers and Fathers, also mentions this demon when he states: “beware of the impulses of the body when it is at rest, and do not let evil thoughts take up residence in your heart.” [46]  Cassian concludes that manual work and direct confrontation of acedia will lead to healing. [47]  Fleeing from acedia only makes the demonic attack worse. Examining the demons of dejection and acedia, one sees Cassian describing elements of depression and anxiety through the lens of Egyptian monasticism well before these terms came to have clinical significance. Depression is medically known as Major Depressive Disorder. Criteria for this disorder include many similarities to the aforementioned symptoms of the demon of dejection: feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and emptiness are oftentimes subjectively relayed by individuals with depression; [48]  there is also a decreased interest in pleasure and interaction with others. [49]  The famous author William Styron says about depression: “the weather of depression is unmodulated, its light a brownout.” [50]  Cassian mentioned that the Egyptian monks suffering from dejection oftentimes isolated from their fellow brethren, and described symptoms very closely aligned with depression according to its modern interpretation. Moreover, as the origin of depression is sometimes linked to triggering and stressful events, [51]  Cassian similarly recognized that often, anger and the lack of accomplishing a goal can lead to the demon of dejection. Anger and failure are, after all, often linked to stressful situations in an individual’s life. Regrettably, the majority of suicides are committed by individuals with depression. [52]  The end result of the demon of dejection is salvific despair; Cassian calls to mind the suicide of Judas, comparatively. In Cassian’s works, the ways prescribed to combat the demon of dejection are similar to those used to treat today’s clinical depression. Cassian described interaction with the fellow monks and also encountering one’s faults directly as a treatment to this demonic attack. Likewise, in the field of psychiatry, cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy seek to aid the patient in recognizing self-inflicted negative thought patterns and addressing negative behaviors, respectively. Group therapy also enables individuals to interact with others who experience similar symptoms to provide a sense of camaraderie. This leads the individual to correct negative thoughts of the self and to become more functional and interactive with others in society. [53] Acedia is similar to depression, anxiety, or a combination of both. Generalized Anxiety Disorder is a chronic anxiety disorder which consists of excessive worry manifesting in various symptoms such as restlessness, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and irritability. [54]  Cassian mentioned that acedia, the “midday demon,” often causes these symptoms. Sometimes the monk may isolate himself; other times he may frequently complain and be anxious. Often in anxiety and depression, one may be crippled and unable to interact socially. This leads them to a decrease in function in their everyday lives, an action identified also by Cassian in the monk struggling with this demon. Abba Moses tells Cassian that one must not flee from or suppress this demon, but rather to attack it straightaway. [55]  Likewise, in psychodynamic psychotherapy, the concept of repression is addressed. [56]  Repression is a defense mechanism utilized by many to avoid psychological distress by “keeping it away,” creating space between the emotion and the individual. [57]  But often, repression can worsen psychological distress and cause it to linger, and thus fails to correct the root cause of the illness. Essentially, Cassian writes that one must not use repression in fighting this demon, but to attack it head-on, and to utilize manual labor as a means to keep oneself busy. Here we see Cassian identifying psychological defense mechanisms that are yet to be fully defined during his time. It is through the behavioral therapy discussed above, in relation to dejection, that we see an individual being enabled to move from idleness to committing to a goal, such as manual or professional work, which can assist in the path to healing. It is clear, both through the therapy modalities discussed and in Cassian’s writings, that a commitment to a goal-oriented activity such as physical work can aid an individual by distracting from the anxious thoughts and feelings affecting them. In comparing the demonic to the psychological, one must realize that spiritual or demonic attacks do not necessarily equate to psychological suffering, and vice versa. The Holy Fathers made a distinction between illnesses caused by demons, and those that are from physiological or psychological origins. [58]  However, the problem of suffering and the goal of attaining healing is one and the same for both the diabolical and the psychological. In the Orthodox Church, this healing comes from Christ. [59] In the world of psychology, healing can come through various modalities, such as psychotherapy, medication, and psychosocial support. Although the definition of healing and the means by which to arrive at it may be different, the goal for the monk in Cassian’s writings, and for one struggling with mental illness, is healing. The battle of the thoughts, and spiritual-psychological attacks are not new occurrences. Even in modern monasticism, the attacks of the thoughts are evident, and can affect the monastic in his everyday struggle. [60]   Cassian provided to the West a unique view of the Egyptian desert. In relaying the struggles of, and demonic attacks encountered by, the monks, Cassian laid the foundations of the principle of overlap between mental health and spiritual health — an interaction that cannot be neglected. Whether today’s mental illnesses are caused by, either wholly or partially, the demonic attacks discussed by Cassian is a complex inquiry requiring further theological and psychological research. What is evidently clear, however, is that the monastic experience, possessing a deep anthropological and spiritual wisdom, ought not be divorced from contemporary social life, self-understanding, and approaches to psychological well-being. Indeed, if one wishes to delve deeper into understanding or treating illnesses such as depression or anxiety — or any other human ailment — they can look to the writings of the monastic fathers and find within them insights that deal with both physical and spiritual wellness in a thoroughly Christian manner. Those who struggle with depression or anxiety, for instance, have as an inspiration and cause of hope the example of the early monastic fathers, who identified, courageously combatted, and successfully overcame these demons by God’s grace and support, and early monastic writings, such as Cassian’s, which teach what the path of healing entails. In learning from the diabolical warfare experienced by the Egyptian monks, one can compare their struggle to these early ascetics and find in them a source of consolation and fellowship, potentially leading them to realize their own healing through the experience and wisdom of those who many centuries earlier, in the Egyptian Desert, suffered like them and emerged victorious over their suffering. — [1] Columba Stewart. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.1998.5. [2]  Ibid . [3]  Ibid ., 9-10. Scetis is the desert that is located West of the Nile, the region is known today as Wadi al-Natrun. 9. [4] The Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness, for instance, is documented in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. [5] Vincent Lampert. The Battle Against Satan and His Demons . Emmaus Road Publishing. 2020. 25. [6]  Ibid ., 26.  [7] Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria in 328 CE, and author of the Life of Antony. (Khaled Anatolius. Athanasius . The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge. 2004. 1, 24). [8] Athanasius and William A Clebsch . The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus . Translated by Robert C Gregg. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. 1980. 34-36. [9]  Ibid . [10] According to translator E.A. Wallis Budge’s preface, the Paradise of the Fathers  was written by Palladius, Jerome, and also included the Life of Antony  which was written by Athanasius. Budge translated the Paradise of the Fathers  from Syriac. ( Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One : Preface, 11). [11] E.A. Wallis Budge. Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One and Two . St Shenouda Press: 2009. 217-219. [12] Evagrius was a fourth-century monk who was a disciple of Gregory of Nazianzus. After living in Jerusalem briefly, Evagrius then fled to the Egyptian desert and became a disciple of Ammonius and the two Macarii (Macarius the Great and Macarius the Alexandrian). Soon becoming a teacher, Evagrius was known in his documenting demonic attacks that encountered the monastics. (Evagrius. Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications, 2009. 3). [13] E.A. Wallis Budge . Paradise of the Holy Fathers : Volume One and Two. St Shenouda Press: 2009. 219. [14] The Rule of Saint Benedict was the monastic rule that was established in the West by Benedict. This system spread throughout Europe and draws upon the writings of John Cassian, Basil, and the Lives of the Fathers. (John Michael Talbot. Blessings of St. Benedict . Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. 2011. IX). [15] Evagrius Pontikus . The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. and Introduction: John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications: 1972. Preface by J. Leclerq: XIV. [16] Evagrius, XIV. [17]  Ibid . [18] Evagrius . Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications, 2009. 6. [19] Evagrius Pontikus . The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. and Introduction: John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications: 1972. Preface by J. Leclerq: xiv. [20] Columba Stewart. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. 4. [21]  Ibid ., 5. [22]  Ibid ., 5. [23]  Ibid ., 4.; John Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople and was deposed in a controversial synod known as the Synod of the Oak in the early fifth century. The controversy involved Theophilus of Alexandria and an Alexandrian following, as well as a group of Origenist monks from Nitria (Wendy Mayer, Pauline Allen, and John Chrysostom. John Chrysostom . The Early Church Fathers. Taylor and Francis Group. London: Routledge, 2000. doi:10.4324/9780203029039. 10). [24] Stewart, 8. [25] These two writings are known colloquially as the Conferences  and the Institutes , respectively, and will be written as such throughout the paper. [26] John Cassian. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Chapter IX: 2000. [27] Christopher J. Kelly. Cassian's Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal . Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies . London: Routledge. 2016. X. [28] Avarice is also known as the love of money. [29] Acedia is also known as accidie or listlessness. [30] John Cassian. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle.1499. [31] Throughout his writings, Cassian interchangeably uses demons, vices, faults, and spirits as the same thing. As mentioned earlier in the paper, Cassian moved slightly away from utilizing foreign demonic references in order to try to be more practical and personal in his approach in relaying a cosmic reality in spiritually applicable ways. [32] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Book IX: Of the Spirit of Dejection: 2007. [33]  Ibid ., Chapter I: 2014. [34]  Ibid ., Chapter IV: 2030. [35]  Ibid . [36]  Ibid ., Chapter VII: 2046. [37]  Genesis 4:1-18 (OSB) [38]  Matthew 27:3-5 (OSB) [39] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Book IX: Of the Spirit of Dejection: Chapter X: 2007. [40] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. 2015. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter I: 2007. [41] Ryan Lamothe . “An Analysis of Acedia.” Pastoral Psychology 56 , no. 1 (2007) 15–30. doi:10.1007/s11089-007-0096-8. 17. [42] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. 2015. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter II: 2101. [43]  Ibid ., Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter 3: 2117.  [44]  II Thessalonians 3:10  (OSB) [45] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXIII: 2007. [46] Sebastian P. Brock. The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life . Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1987. Chapter VII: 151 [47] John Cassian . The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXV: 2359. [48] B.J. Sadock. V. A. Sadock, & P. Ruiz. Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry  (Eleventh edition.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. 2015. 357. [49]  Ibid . [50] William Styron . Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness . New York: Random House, 1990. 19. [51] Sadock, 354. [52] Sadock, 764. [53]  Ibid ., 372-373. [54]  Ibid ., 409. [55] John Cassian. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. Kindle. Book X: Of the Spirit of Accidie: Chapter XXV: 2359. [56] Nancy McWilliams . Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process . New York: The Guilford Press, Second Edition. 2011. Print. 127. [57] McWilliams, 127. [58] Razvan Brudiu. Human Suffering and Its Healing According to Jean-Claude Larchet . European Journal of Science and Theology , September 2012, Vol.8, Supplement 2, 284-285. [59]  Ibid ., 287. [60] Anna Smiljanic. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica . Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2009. 29.  — Bibliography Primary Sources Athanasius, and William A Clebsch . The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus . Trans. Robert C Gregg. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. 1980. Budge, Wallis. Paradise of the Holy Fathers Volume One and Two.  St Shenouda Press. 2009. Cassian, John. The Conferences of the Desert Fathers , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Cassian, John. The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principle Faults , trans. Rev. Edgar C.S. Gibson. Aeterna Press. 2015. Kindle. Evagrius. Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons . Translated by David Brakke. Cistercian Studies Series, No. 229. Trappist, Ky.: Cistercian Publications. 2009. Ponticus, Evagrius. The Praktikos & Chapters on Prayer . Trans. John Eudes Bamberger. Cistercian Publications. 1972. Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (Eleventh edition.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer. 2015.   Secondary Sources Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius . The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge. 2004. Brock, Sebastian P. The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life.  Kalamazoo, Mich: Cistercian Publications. 1987. Brudiu, Razvan. Human Suffering and Its Healing According to Jean-Claude Larchet . European Journal of Science and Theology,  September 2012. Vol.8, Supplement 2, 281-287. Jones, Christopher D. “The Problem of Acedia in Eastern Orthodox Morality.” Studies in Christian Ethics 33 . 2020. (3): 336–51. doi:10.1177/0953946819847652. Kelly, Christopher J. Cassian's Conferences: Scriptural Interpretation and the Monastic Ideal. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies.  London: Routledge. 2016. LaMothe, Ryan. “An Analysis of Acedia.” Pastoral Psychology 56, no. 1  (2007): 15–30. doi:10.1007/s11089-007-0096-8. Lampert, Vincent . The Battle Against Satan and His Demons . Emmaus Road Publishing 1468. Parkview Circle Steubenville, Ohio : 2020. Kindle. Mayer, Wendy, Pauline Allen, and John Chrysostom. John Chrysostom.  The Early Church Fathers. Taylor and Francis Group. London: Routledge, 2000. doi:10.4324/9780203029039. McWilliams, Nancy . Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process . New York: The Guilford Press, Second Edition. 2011. Print. Smiljanic, Anna (trans). Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica . Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. 2009. Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk . Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Styron, William. Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness . New York: Random House. 1990. Talbot, John Michael. Blessings of St. Benedict . Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. 2011. — Abraham Ghattas is a Coptic Orthodox Christian who practices psychiatry in Houston, Texas. He holds a bachelor's degree in Psychology with a concentration in Behavioral Neuroscience, as well as a minor degree in Religious Studies from Purdue University. He received his DO medical degree from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. He is board certified in Psychiatry and works as a Staff Psychiatrist at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, TX. He is also on faculty at Baylor University College of Medicine as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors, and holds a Certificate in Early Christian Studies from St. Athanasius and St. Cyril Theological School (ACTS) in California. He has lectured on Crisis Intervention and Trauma Counseling as part of the Family Ministry Program. He has also lectured on anxiety, depression, substance use, development, and the overlap of mental health and Orthodox spirituality to youth, adolescents, servants, adults, and parents. He enjoys spirituality, Philosophy, Patristics, Christology, and Church History. Cover Art: Lelio Orsi, The Temptation of St. Anthony, 1570s. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

His Grace Bishop Suriel Bishop of Melbourne, Australia and Professor at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, New Jersey, United States Thus far in our series,[1] we have examined in broad strokes the experience of the early Church, and particularly the “schools” of Alexandria, and that of a modern Coptic Orthodox religious educator and visionary, St. Habib Girgis, in our discussion of foundational considerations for theological education in the Coptic Orthodox Church. We turn now in our discourse to the Church today, applying herein what we have gleaned from our previous discussions in considering what challenges face the Coptic Church today, whether and how theological education factors into understanding, addressing, and overcoming those challenges, and what sound theological education might look like in practice in the Church today, particularly in the West. We have seen significant change in the last 50 years, with the rate of change increasing every decade. We now live in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, and it is our duty therefore to equip ecclesial leaders with the proper training to enable them to lead the Church in this ever-changing landscape. In our parishes, we serve several generations concurrently, including Generation Y (those born between 1980 and 1995), Generation Zed, or Generation Z as it is called in America (those born between 1995 and 2010), and the latest generation, Generation Alpha (those born between 2010 and today). Today’s world is increasingly secular, with religion holding little place in mainstream society. Our people, particularly our young people, are radically challenged by Atheism, Secularism, and Relativism amongst others. How will we faithfully minister to them? How will we serve future generations? The need for high quality theological education is now even more pressing than it was in the twentieth century. The world is quite different today than it was in previous centuries, let alone in previous decades, particularly in the West. When we speak of theological education proper, we mean the formal preparation of our future priests, bishops, servants, missionaries, and Church leaders. In 2013, His Holiness Pope Tawadros II invited Fr. Dr. John Behr, the regis chair in humanities at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, to a conference on theological education in Egypt to speak about theological education in the twenty-first century. Fr. John reminded us that we are not preparing our students for today’s world, but for tomorrow’s, and it is for this that we need to be equipping our people — again, not for today’s world, but for tomorrow’s. If our situation is difficult now, it will be even more difficult in the decades to come, and it is for this reason that we need to properly equip our people. We are facing an increasingly hostile environment. We must also remember that the general level of education in the Coptic community has skyrocketed. In fact, Generation Z is the most educated generation ever, with at least half of those born in that generation having University degrees, compared to a mere quarter of Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1980). The mind of the twenty-first-century person is very different from that of the twentieth-century person. Our young people are taught to think critically, question sources, and investigate rigorously. Studies of young people have shown that they are forming their own spirituality from influences in a heavily saturated media culture. Young people living in a secular society are subject to an “electronically conditioned global village culture that colors their view of religion itself and offers many alternative sources of meaning and values that can be incorporated into identity.”[2] The context in which ministry is happening today is vastly different from that of the family-centered, community-focused, and less secular world that existed in previous generations. Studies also show that “contemporary spirituality is individualistic, eclectic, subjective and secular, where little is drawn from the religious tradition, and scant affiliation is made with a specific community.”[3] Yes, these studies were not conducted on young Coptic Orthodox people, but it would be naive to think that our own data would be vastly different from this, especially as to second- and third-generation Copts in the West. How are we to face these challenges today, and the ones to come? Clergy, servants, and leaders must be equipped to serve in the times and cultures in which we live. We have clearly seen in our Church’s history what happens when there is an absence or lack of sound theological education. Is it enough for future clergy to be formed in Sunday School, Pre-Servants Training, and other parish ministries? Habib Girgis made the case for this at the beginning of the twentieth century. Does the current situation not beckon an even more pressing need? Perhaps the opportunity for widespread theological education was not feasible in the twentieth century Coptic Orthodox Church in the West due to many factors, such as the rapid foundation and immense expansion of Coptic communities there due to migration. Certainly all of the dedicated clergy, servants, and leaders who served the Church in the West with their blood, sweat, and tears did a magnificent job in engraining Coptic Orthodox life, spirituality, and identity amongst their children and the young people in their communities. These efforts met the needs of the Church in the twentieth century. How will we meet the needs of the Church in this twenty-first century? Our young people, as we have all seen in our ministry, differ from previous generations, and we are duty-bound to serve them faithfully, answer their questions thoroughly, and never sell them short. How can we do this without proper theological education? Habib Girgis faced many financial difficulties, which is understandable as the Church herself at that time faced many financial difficulties as a whole. These constraints prevented him from implementing a lasting legacy of theological education that comported to his vision — one that met or even exceeded international standards. I believe it is safe to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West does not have these financial constraints today. We have been blessed with the resources to expand and build many churches and church buildings. Is it not now due time to focus on devoting financial resources to robust theological education, sending students to receive accredited degrees and awards so that they can teach, and sponsoring candidates for ordination to study before being ordained so that they have the time and resources to faithfully devote themselves to their own formation in order to then be able to properly form and educate their future congregants? We spend tens of millions of dollars on beautiful churches that can become museum pieces or meet a variety of similar fates if we do not learn from the rich legacy of the early Church and of Habib Girgis and turn our attention to theological education before it becomes too late. Perhaps some might oppose this attention to theological education and say that we should focus on the “pastoral” needs of the community. Is it either healthy or intellectually honest to pit pastoral care and academic or theological instruction against one another in this way? If pastoral ministry is the service of others, how can it be carried out, and that correctly, if it is not grounded in the fullness of the revelation of God? To so portray the pastoral and the educative is a false dichotomy. Both must go hand in hand in order for them to be founded upon a truly Apostolic foundation capable of soundly meeting the needs of others — needs that are not only spiritual or social, but also intellectual, theological, and dogmatic. Allow me to illustrate this using an example. Habib Girgis introduced Sunday Schools into the Coptic Orthodox Church at a time when religious education was lacking. He used the model developed in England in 1788 and modified by Protestants in America in the following century. As we have seen in the last 100 years, this initiative bore much fruit. Where can you find a Coptic Orthodox Church in the world without Sunday School today? In establishing the modern Sunday School movement, a key consideration was the viability of the movement — that is, being founded upon no recent underpinning, the emphasis was on providing a sustainable education where there had been none previously. However, the situation has now changed: teaching is now established in the Coptic Orthodox Church and the model of Christian education being employed therein now needs to be re-examined in light of today’s generational profile and a properly Orthodox understanding of education. Sunday School, which is a pastoral ministry, can only faithfully serve our children and youth in the twenty-first century if it is appropriately grounded theologically and culturally relevant to the demographic it seeks to serve. This is not a matter of curriculum or content, but one of approach. How do we as a Church understand the formation of the child, the teenager, and the young man and woman? Is this something that happens in the classroom pedagogically, or in the life of the Church experientially, or both? Such questions require rigorous study, investigation, and discussion, and these considerations represent an important component of the task of theological education in the Church today. Theological education is not the same as any other academic endeavor. We must remember that Theology is not some abstract discipline where we learn about God. We cannot set Theology amongst or as equivalent to all other academic disciplines. Such academic disciplines can be mastered through diligent study, teaching, investigation, and even experimentation. The same cannot be said of Theology, since it does not speak of God as those speak of any other subject, but, as the early Christians saw it, it is an affirmation of the divinity of the crucified and exalted Lord Jesus Christ. Theology is not merely some theoretical teaching about God, but as Didymus the Blind states, “it is a power, glory, and force that is able to perform great wonders.” Theology operates beyond intellectual reasoning and deduction. It can be said that Theology is primarily an encounter between God and the one who attempts to theologize. Theology is not simply an academic enterprise, as we have seen from our earlier discussion on the School of Alexandria. Theological education in the Alexandrine tradition was to disciple people to the Christian life. This emphasizes that the classroom and the altar are inseparable in theological education. The language of theology is not primarily developed in the classroom, but in prayer and worship — the whole liturgical life of the Church. This framework is expounded upon in the classroom or lecture theater and expressed practically in service or fieldwork. One may ask, “Why, then, do we need to have accredited theological institutions?” We cannot sell our students short. We must provide them with the highest caliber of teachers possible, and the most robust training and teaching they can have. The students we present and recommend for service in the Church, whether in the ministry of teaching or otherwise, will not only minister to those who have grown up in the Church, but also to people whose lives are radically challenged by Secularism, Atheism, and Relativism — all struggles we all, whether young or old, face every day in the West, and now increasingly even in the East. We must not forget that we are called to share the Gospel with others, especially in ways that they can appreciate and understand. Our understanding of the Faith must be at least as sophisticated as anything with which the world challenges us. Our people, especially the young, cannot be used to thinking in a critical manner at school and work, and then come to church to find that their questions are being answered unsatisfactorily or unconvincingly, or brushed aside, or dismissed. We must provide our people full and informed answers when we are asked a question — any question — and must in turn ensure that those who occupy positions of teaching in the Church receive the highest caliber of education in order to be able to competently and effectively carry out their ministry. This demands both integrity and accountability — indeed, integrity and accountability are among the most basic spiritual and educational principles — and practically requires that our educational programs are assessed by others who are both unbiased and well equipped to opine on their adequacy and robustness. This is realized through accreditation, where our educational institutions are regularly assessed by an impartial accrediting or governing body to ensure that those who teach are qualified to do so and have spent years dedicated to wrestling with their chosen areas of study and have been tested in both the methodology and content of their teaching and studies. Receiving accreditation means full recognition from the necessary disinterested bodies and being called to account by others who are properly qualified to ensure that we are acting with integrity in the education we provide our people. As part of theological education, it is incumbent upon our educational institutions to not only teach Patristics, Biblical Studies, Theology, Liturgics, Liturgical Theology, and languages, but also Religious Education, Youth Ministry, Parish Formation (the formation of a parish community), ministry to the sick and dying, Apologetics, Christian Counseling, Prison Ministry, and much more. To become able to do so, we must first promote and encourage scholarship among our people, including facilitating for them both the resources they need to dedicate their time and efforts to study and investigation with the spirit of discipleship as well as the appropriate infrastructural systems to ensure that they do not complete their studies only to be left with nowhere to serve or teach and no way to make a living, as St. Habib Girgis mentions, in his 1938 book on the history of the Seminary, regarding the 22 graduates of the Seminary who were left without work. It is not enough for the Christian educator to know facts; more than this, it is about a way of thinking — a methodology. Studying Theology at an Orthodox theological school is not like studying Theology at a secular university. It requires, and must require, the same intellectual rigor, but our teaching and study as Orthodox Christians must be driven by the theological vision itself. In late antiquity, education was viewed as Paideia, “a training that seeks, above all, formation. Formation examines the habits of the heart that constitute a good theologian. The focus is on identity rather than information: being a certain kind of person rather than knowing a specific body of knowledge.”[4] Seminaries “train professional leaders, people who will both ‘profess’ the Faith in fresh ways and function as professionals, i.e., display the skills and competencies appropriate to their calling. Church leaders today need what Church leaders have always needed — training in what theology is all about and training in how to do it on the ground.”[5] This is not only about having theological institutions, but also about respecting theological education as a Church. Asking: “What do those who have studied have to say to us as a Church?” This requires us to respect expertise more than mere experience. Just because someone has been serving, or served, in a particular church for a long time, or was a popular or respected servant in the Church, does not make that person an “expert” or imply that what that person taught or how that person conducted his or her service should necessarily be emulated or sustained. What should be considered is expertise, in order to allow the many voices in the Church to sing a beautiful symphony of sound Orthodoxy that is in line with the Biblical, Patristic, and Liturgical witness. I will conclude with a final point — one that was briefly mentioned in the first entry of this series. We must read carefully and wrestle with the ancient Christian texts, in order to allow the writers of antiquity to speak to us today. We must do so both by consulting accurate translations of the ancient sources and through the mouths of their modern readers. We must oblige our responsibility of academic honesty and have the courage to be accurate, precise, and specific in our research efforts. It is not enough to simply read the Fathers. Rather, the Fathers need to be studied in terms of both their content and context. We in the Church today face an ongoing struggle with many voices presenting opposing views on various important theological matters, such as salvation, Christology, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and many other points. These have been the subjects of contention for decades, both within our own Church and more broadly between Christian denominations, and the discussion becomes even more pertinent when it enters the sphere of ecumenical dialogue. We as a Church must be honest in examining our past, particularly the last century, to see if what was widely taught stands in line with the understanding of the Church Fathers as set forth in their writings. In doing so, we ought to respect academic integrity. We cannot sideline without adequate discussion and exploration those who have views that do not align with what is understood or recognized to be today’s mainstream thought. This must be done using the appropriate theological methodology — something that is best learned through proper theological education. Those before us in the twentieth century used the means and methods at their disposal in often challenging circumstances. It is now up to us to build on their efforts, even if it means reconsidering some of the teachings presented in the (recent) past in light of our understanding of the Church’s Theology as expressed through her Biblical, Patristic, and Liturgical witness properly understood. In doing so, we do not by any means question the piety or holiness of the lives of those whose teachings we may question. Rather, as a Church, we consider that Theology is not the work of individuals, but the work of the whole Church, and we must reflect and learn from our past. Will we sideline those who have studied and have, after sound study and rigorous examination, and with the necessary spiritual prerequisites, come to hold opinions that may not be considered mainstream today? Will we remain silent when clergymen or members of the laity preach doctrine that lacks any appropriate academic or theological rigor? According theological education its rightful place as a pillar in the Church protects us from those individuals who wish to render themselves self-proclaimed theologians, whether maliciously or not, especially when the various communication platforms available today make it easy to do so, particularly on social media. Let us take seriously the call to ministering in the West in the twenty-first century by valuing theological education. This is by all means achievable. All other major Christian denominations are found to do this; they require those whom they appoint as clergy, servants, and leaders to be adequately trained and educated. We too can do so, in the spirit of the Alexandrine tradition, which will surely include unique elements not present in Western approaches to theological education that will bring to light the depths of the riches of our two-thousand-year heritage. May the Lord guide the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West to raise theological education as a top priority in her ministry, to the salvation of many and the glory of God, to Whom be glory in His holy Church forever. Amen. — [1] See Part One — The Experience of the Early Church; Part Two — The Experience of St. Habib Girgis and the Coptic Orthodox Seminary. [2] Crawford, M.L. & Rossiter, G. M. (2006). Reasons for living: Education and young people’s search for meaning, identity and spirituality. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. [3] Michael Salib, A Multidimensional Understanding of Sunday School in the Coptic Orthodox Tradition, in Copts in Modernity, 257–269. [4] Martha E. Stortz, Re-Imagining Theological Education for the Twenty-First Century: “What Has Theological Ed to do with Higher Ed?”, in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2011, December, 373-379, at 373. [5] Id. at 375. — His Grace Bishop Suriel presently serves as a Professor at the Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary in New Jersey, United States. We are honored to announce that Season Two of His Grace Bishop Suriel’s podcast, Coffee with Bishop Suriel, is also coming soon! Subscribe to Coffee with Bishop Suriel to receive the latest news. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

His Grace Bishop Suriel Bishop of Melbourne, Australia and Professor at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, New Jersey, United States Having briefly set forth, in Part One of this series, an overview of Christian education as it was carried out in the early Church, and particularly in the “schools” of Alexandria, let us now shift our focus to modern Coptic history, and specifically the work of St. Habib Girgis in theological education in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Prior to embarking on that endeavor, however, it is important to note that little is known about the theological developments that arose in Egypt immediately following the Arab Conquest, and whatever we know today comes from the literary productions of isolated theologians of that period rather than from any consistent or uniform theological school of thought. The thirteenth century is considered by some scholars to be the “age” of Coptic Orthodox Theology and Dogmatics, which was followed by 300 years of silence in the field of Coptic Orthodox Theology. By the late Middle Ages, the situation in the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite dire. A seventeenth century German theologian and traveler describes his visit to a Sunday liturgy in the Coptic Orthodox Church, writing: “They [the Copts] do not keep or have preachers nor are those good priests suitable. Instead of the sermon, there is reading after the Gospel of a homily from a book called tafâsîr (explanations), taken from one of the Fathers, such as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophilus, Abbot Bussi, and people of that sort. For some time, the Franciscans have been preaching in Arabic among the Copts, and as a result they have been converting Copts to Catholicism with their exemplary lifestyle.”[1] By the middle of the nineteenth century, historians note that many among the clergy, reflecting their social surroundings, were ignorant of and negligent in their religious duties. Coming from the lower classes of the community, these clergymen often made up for their previous probations either by misusing church property or selling their religious services. The Church, plagued with widespread ignorance, had then a bleak future and was under external threat from Western missionaries while facing constant internal struggles, with the educated lay people calling for reform. By this time, Protestant and Catholic missionaries were active in Egypt and began posing threats to Coptic identity, as they were generally far more theologically educated than the Coptic clergy of that time. Needless to say, the need for a clerical school to educate Coptic Orthodox clergymen in the Faith of the Church became particularly pressing under these dire conditions. The first attempt at establishing such a clerical school was the opening of a clerical college on January 13, 1875 during the papacy of Pope Cyril V.[2] This institution was enthusiastically hailed as a new incarnation of the ancient Catechetical School of Alexandria. However, few of the students — all monks from the monasteries — applied themselves to their studies, and the Seminary survived only a few months. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Coptic Orthodox Church was in all the more urgent need for a seminary for the formation of her priests. St. Habib Girgis comments: “Since religious service was among the most esteemed services to the Church and its position was the highest, this required, therefore, that pastors [الرعاة] be sufficiently prepared in the Orthodox faith. They needed to be especially cared for and to be chosen from among those with excellent qualifications, from the sons of the community generally. Various efforts and finances are also required for the sake of these pastors who will lead the community to the place of safety and for the benefit hoped for.”[3] Habib Girgis could not imagine a priest serving without the education necessary to equip him for such an important role. He understood how impossible it would be for any person to be employed in a profession or trade without having first undergone the necessary training; how much more important, then, was proper religious training for a priest who was responsible for the souls of people! He wrote: “But the Church cannot present to us true leaders, counselors, and reformers unless her leaders and pastors are specially trained to practice their lofty and critical roles. Who can be compared to them except those with similar critical positions in life? An engineer cannot take on this role without proper training in the faculty of engineering. The physician cannot be trusted over people’s bodies and souls unless he receives both theoretical and practical education in his faculty. The situation is similar also for a judge, lawyer, teacher, farmer, and mechanic, as well as others who are comparable… Hence, a religious pastor is not exempt from this, since a pastor, worthy of this title and worthy to be responsible for souls, needs to be educated in religious and secular subjects. But it is more important that [the priest] perfects the sacraments and characteristics of his profession than any of those other professions so that he may fulfill his obligations and carry out his burdens. In this way, he may transcend to a most eminent relationship with the eternal souls [he pastors].”[4] According to Habib Girgis, in the second half of the nineteenth century there was only one priest in all of Egypt who was both capable of preaching and well versed in the Orthodox faith: Hegumen Philotheos Ibrahim Baghdadi, who lived from 1837 until 1904. This historical background underscores the importance of the dedication ceremony that took place on November 29, 1893 — a date widely considered to be the official opening of the Coptic Orthodox Seminary in Cairo, which Habib Girgis considered to be the greatest success of Pope Cyril V. When the Seminary opened, it had no teacher of religion or theology. Its first dean, Yusuf Mankarios, would simply choose some religious books and hand them out to the students to read aloud in front of him. Students complained repeatedly to the Pope and to the Lay Community Council about the lack of proper theological instruction, but to no avail. This bizarre situation continued for four years and led many students to leave the Seminary. There was one attempt to rectify the situation: on January 13, 1896, the Lay Community Council appointed the  aforementioned Hegumen Philotheos, who was then quite elderly, to teach at the Seminary. Sadly, however, his tenure lasted only two weeks, after which he collapsed in class due to his old age and illness and would never return. Habib Girgis was one of 12 graduates of the great Coptic School who were chosen to be part of the first class of 40 students to enter the Seminary. Many of his cohorts dropped out because of lack of interest or academic ability, but Habib Girgis was a bright scholar who, given his academic prowess and exceptional talent, as well as the Seminary’s need for a capable teacher, was appointed by a special decree to teach religion on a temporary basis during his final year. He graduated shortly thereafter — the first to graduate from the newly re-established Seminary — and on May 8, 1898, having shown great potential and success as an instructor, he was promptly appointed to a full-time position at the Seminary, teaching Theology and Homiletics. Habib Girgis compared the relationship between the Seminary and the Coptic community to that between the heart and the body. He says, “for as the duty of the heart is to pump blood to the organs of the body, accordingly, from this spring, the spirit of teaching, guidance, and the transmission of the good news of salvation will spread among people.”[5] The mission of the Seminary was twofold: to teach Orthodox Theology and doctrine, and to form priests and preachers who would enlighten the other members of the Coptic community, both young and old. The first statutes for the Seminary were formulated in 1893, prescribed a five-year period of study, and listed the subjects to be taught. All were taught by foreigners, with the exception of Theology, which was to be taught, from the third year of coursework onwards, by a capable Orthodox priest. The statutes promulgated thereafter, in 1912, addressed numerous administrative matters: all students were required to live at the Seminary, sleeping in dormitories or large rooms, and it was only with special permission that a student could lodge outside the Seminary. Class sizes were capped at 25 students, and admission requirements included passing an entrance exam, presenting three letters of recommendation, including one from the prospective student’s diocesan bishop, a minimum age in practice — of 16 years old — and at least four years of elementary school education. Each applicant was required to undergo a medical examination and be physically fit, without blemish or physical deformity. Applicants were also required to nominate a sponsor — an individual who would vouch for the prospective student’s character, commitment to completing his studies, and willingness to be employed wherever the need arose and to continue in religious ministry following his completion of the Seminary’s curriculum. The statutes also extended to the lives of priests and teachers beyond the confines of the Seminary. For example, the Board could transfer a preacher from one place to another according to need and circumstance. Preachers were required to prepare for the Board an annual report of their ministry. Parish priests were only permitted to allow graduates of the Seminary to preach in their parishes, and had to obtain written permission from the Pope. The Seminary maintained a record of qualified preachers and each year announced the names of the new graduate preachers along with their places of ministry. These regulations served two purposes: they ensured that those who preached were properly trained and formed at the Seminary and preached according to the Coptic Orthodox Faith, and prevented followers of other religious denominations from infiltrating Coptic Orthodox parishes and preaching views and ideas that were not in accordance with Coptic Orthodox Theology. Such measures afforded the Coptic Orthodox community a layer of protection by ensuring that those who preached came from a reliable source approved by the Pope himself. When Habib Girgis was appointed dean of the Seminary in 1918, he inherited an institution with virtually no organizational structure, vision, or sense of direction. The curriculum was inadequate in many ways, particularly with regard to religious and theological education — the very purpose for which the Seminary had been established. Financial constraints led to friction between Habib Girgis and the Lay Community Council, and Habib Girgis felt stymied in his efforts to improve the Seminary’s infrastructure, increase faculty salaries, and meet daily running expenses, among several other concerns. As dean of the Seminary, Habib Girgis had his work cut out for him. He took on a monumental list of reforms under dire circumstances, embracing a task that might have discouraged even the most formidable and talented of educators. He described his love for the Seminary and his zeal for education and theological reform in strong metaphorical language, likening it to the shedding of blood, putting one’s life and spirit at its service, and the kindling of fire and hope in one’s heart. Amidst those financial difficulties, a committee presented a report in February 1927 which acknowledged the Seminary’s financial hardship and the economic crisis that the country at large was then facing, asking only for what was considered to be essential, fundamental, and practical. Acknowledging Habib Girgis’ great endeavors in developing the Seminary religiously, spiritually, and academically, the committee sought the support of the Patriarchate Church Council, the Lay Community Council, and the Pope to raise standards even further. The committee desired that all faculty be appropriately qualified, both academically and spiritually, with preference given to clerical school graduates who had completed the higher level coursework. This would entail transferring to other schools certain faculty members who were deemed unqualified to teach at the Seminary. The report also stressed the importance of having qualified lecturers, preferably chosen from among the higher level graduates of the Seminary, or from those holding higher diplomas from other Schools, Colleges, or Universities. The low salaries paid to local faculty affected their morale and gave them little incentive to improve their academic standards. Habib Girgis understood their predicament and made repeated requests for increased pay, to no avail. He wrote bitterly to the Patriarchate Church Council saying: “I have said that the moral state of the teachers is unacceptable and their spirits are low with pain and overburdened with hardships. How can a teacher work while his mind is disturbed and his soul is in pain and in a miserable state?”[6] Receiving meager wages, the existing lecturers showed little desire to develop their knowledge and skills and found no incentive to exert themselves to strive for academic excellence among their students. The report that was presented alongside the budget emphasized that the Seminary was the “spine” of the Coptic Church and the measure of its revival and refinement, and argued that the new proposed system would raise standards to a level suited to modern developments and circumstances. Despite all the work by the committee that had been expressly appointed by the Patriarchate Church Council, there was no immediate response. Habib Girgis followed up with a letter to the Council on May 31, 1927, after the academic year had ended, seeking a response so that improvements could begin at the start of the new academic year. Almost two months later, he received a hasty and brief reply requesting a report on the last academic year before the committee could look into the new curriculum. Both Habib Girgis and the committee must have been deeply frustrated by this apparent lack of interest from the very body that had demanded such a thorough inquiry and imposed such a stringent deadline. The reasons for the Patriarchate Church Council’s ambivalence are unclear; the most likely explanation is a lack of sufficient funds to implement their recommendations, although the Council may also have been attempting to exert its authority over the Seminary. Habib Girgis regularly wrote with sorrow to the Patriarchate Church Council about its lack of financial support. The following appeal is from 1929, but the sentiments expressed therein remain true throughout Habib Girgis’ career as dean: “This state has disadvantaged the welfare of the College and the welfare of education, and if this continues the situation will be worse. Who then will carry that responsibility? This, no doubt, is an injustice that no member of the council would accept, and since I have raised this complaint and have not had a response except that the budget does not allow for more, why then does the budget accommodate all [the Patriarchate’s] facilities, yet is only restrictive toward the Clerical School, which is more worthy than any other facility and should be given attention more than any other work?”[7] Habib Girgis appointed foreign lecturers to teach subjects for which no qualified Coptic Orthodox teachers could be found. For instance, in October 1928, he announced that the Seminary’s elite group of instructors of Theology, the humanities, and Law had been joined by the honorable Mr. John Leonard Wilson, who held a higher degree in Theology from Oxford University, to teach Philosophy of Religion. Habib Girgis understood that appointing a highly-credentialed scholar from Oxford would help raise both the academic standards and prestige of the Seminary. While he did not allow non-orthodox doctrine to be taught to his students, Habib Girgis looked beyond dogma to the other benefits that such a scholar could bring. In May 1942, Habib Girgis outlined the further refinement of the curriculum of the Seminary. He restructured the Seminary by dividing it into nine “streams,” or programs. There would now be only one level for the main course of study, which was primarily for those studying so as to receive ordination thereafter to the priesthood, requiring four years to complete. The Sunday School Teacher’s program would require three years of part-time study, comprising two lessons per week. The clerical program for ordained priests would also be part-time over a three-year period, but with six lessons per week, into which Habib Girgis proposed introducing the subject of Comparative Theology. Unfortunately, the 1942 plan only partially came to fruition due to a lack of funding. In 1946, Habib Girgis introduced further part-time study in the evenings for University graduates who were employed and still desired to serve as volunteers in their own parishes. Many leaders of Sunday Schools from Cairo and Giza enrolled in the Seminary at that time, although women were not admitted until October of 1959, nearly eight years after Habib Girgis’ death. Sadly, however, the Lay Community Council ordered the closure of this new Graduate Seminary during Habib Girgis’ last illness.[8] The Seminary still struggled to find qualified Coptic Orthodox faculty members to teach, eventually conceding that if no suitable Coptic Orthodox teacher could be found, a theological teacher might be recruited from another, preferably Orthodox, denomination. The depressingly low pay rates were still in place, even in 1948. The average teacher was earning only around 12 Egyptian Pounds per month. Girgis as dean was paid just over 40 Egyptian Pounds per month, while Cantor Mikhail Jirjis was earning less than four Egyptian Pounds per month to teach liturgical hymnology. There was also the continuing dilemma over whether to send students abroad to gain higher qualifications in western Seminaries and Universities. Habib Girgis struggled with this predicament throughout his career. In November 1945, the committee suggested that some of the Seminary's brighter graduates be sent abroad to study Hebrew and Greek, in order that they might, upon their return, replace foreign faculty members. It was also decided at this time to form an administrative committee for the Seminary consisting of three metropolitans chosen by the Holy Synod, three members of the organizing committee, the dean, and two members of the faculty. Its role would be to examine every nomination to the priesthood from across Egypt and present its recommendations to the Pope for his approval. Any ordination carried out in defiance of that system would be considered void. This move would bring an unprecedented degree of centralization to the Church and greater authority for the Pope. Habib Girgis wished only to ensure that those who had earned their qualifications at the Seminary would be ordained to the priesthood, and no one else. Whether this goal was achievable is open to question. The decree was followed to a great extent during the papacy of Pope Cyril VI but less closely thereafter. It is important to note that alongside his diligent work in theological education, Habib Girgis worked in parallel on expanding the work of Sunday Schools in the Coptic Orthodox Church. In fact, he based much of the work of Sunday Schools at the Seminary, which was a strategic move, as the Seminary was the heart of education in the Church and became an environment where Habib Girgis could test his ideas and theories on both faculty and students, with the Seminary also providing the right environment for the protection of pedagogical approaches, textbooks, and curricula. Having discussed the great work of Habib Girgis in the service of theological education in the Coptic Orthodox Church during his lifetime, the question now becomes whether he ultimately achieved his ambitions for the Coptic Orthodox Seminary. Because his work there was central to his mission of reforming the Coptic Orthodox Church and community, success or failure in that enterprise meant success or failure at broader reform. The verdict of history is not unanimous. In his 1938 book on the history of the Seminary, Habib Girgis observed that in the 45 years since its opening in 1893, the Seminary had produced a total of 320 graduates, two metropolitans, 209 priests, and 87 preachers and teachers (he did not mention the cantors), and acknowledged that 22 graduates were still without work. Many of the graduates had served the Church and the community in capacities other than the priesthood, such as by teaching Sunday School, leading youth groups, and joining Coptic Societies. Graduates of the Seminary had a profound influence on the Coptic Orthodox Church and community. Nonetheless, later in life, Habib Girgis soberly reflected on the Seminary's progress and said: “The Theological School was established half a century ago. It should have reached, by now, the standard of the finest Colleges. Regretfully, however, it did not receive the required support for its development. Instead, it spent most of its life in wasted struggle, fighting to survive and develop according to the weak means it possessed.”[9] The culmination of Habib Girgis’ work at the Seminary was its official recognition and accreditation in July 1948 by Egypt’s Minister of Education. The Minister recognized the qualification granted by the Coptic Orthodox Seminary as the equivalent of a four-year Bachelor’s degree. Nevertheless, the Seminary never reached the international standards to which Habib Girgis aspired. The prerequisites for admission remained low, as relatively few young Coptic men were interested in studying theology or pursuing a priestly calling — a vocation that enjoyed little prestige in the Coptic community at that time. Habib Girgis never achieved his ambition of an educated priesthood made up solely of men with a proper theological training from the Seminary. Although one can sense through his writings the bitterness he felt at the end of his life because his goals were not fully met, he is found in the same writings nonetheless hoping for a brighter future, one in which the next generation would carry on his legacy, recognize the central role that his educational reform policies would play in preserving Coptic identity, and assure a successful future for the Coptic community. Habib Girgis’ desire was that the Coptic Orthodox Seminary not only graduate priests, preachers, and teachers, but also reformers in every sense of the word.[10] In the life and decades-long service of Habib Girgis, we see that he was responding with singular care and concern to a pressing issue of his time — a desperate need for educated clergy, servants, and Church leaders who were able to ensure that the Coptic Orthodox faithful were fed true Orthodoxy in light of active western missionaries in Egypt. In the coming final entry in this series, we will reflect on the challenges we face today in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and examine, through applying the historical data we have discussed thus far, why the Coptic Orthodox Church is in equal if not even greater need for sound theological education today as she was at the time of St. Habib Girgis. — [1] Johann Michael Wansleben, Relazione dell Stato presente dell’Egitto, as translated in Anthony Alcock, Johann Michael Wansleben on the Coptic Church (2016), 7-8. [2] Pope Cyril V occupied the Throne of St. Mark from 1874 to 1927. He is the longest reigning patriarch in the history of the Coptic Church, having served as pope for 52 years, nine months and six days. [3] Habib Girgis, The Coptic Orthodox Theological College [4] Habib Girgis, “al-Madrasah al-Iklīrīkiyah: Māḍīhā wa-ḥāḍirhā wa-mustaqbalahā” [The Clerical School: Its Past, Present and Future], al-Karmah [The Vine] 9.9 (1923): 464 [5] Habib Girgis, “al-Madrasah al-Iklīrīkiyah,” al-Karmah 6.7 (1912): 307-8 [6] Habib Girgis, Handwritten letter from author to the Patriarchate’s Church Council, Patriarchal Archives, Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Cairo (21 February 1929): 4-6.2-4/33 [7] Ibid. [8] I believe this decision caused him to become paralyzed near the end of his life. [9] Habib Girgis, Practical Means Toward Coptic Reform, 82 [10] It is important to note that during this period, authors would at times use western writings as references. Even some of Habib Girgis’ works, especially those on the Sacraments, were influenced by Catholic writings. At times, Protestant Apologetics was used against Catholics and Catholic Apologetics against Protestants. While some efforts were made by certain individuals to translate selected patristic texts such as Yassa Abdelmassih, Murad Kamel, Yusuf Habib, and Fr. Markos Dawoud, it was not until the time of the bishop of education in 1962, that is, Bishop Shenouda (later Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory), and his writings and sermons, along with the publishing of the writings of Fr. Matthew the Poor and the work of the Center of Patristic Studies in Cairo, which started in 1979, that we begin to see a more widespread use of patristic texts. This begs the question: what were some of the main sources used during the first seven decades of the twentieth century, particularly the first half of the twentieth century? Fr. Markos Dawoud, for instance, spent most of his effort translating the works of F.B. Meyer and Matthew Henry from English into Arabic. This raises some serious questions about the formation of theological thinking in the Coptic Orthodox Church, particularly in the late nineteenth and early- to mid- twentieth centuries, which many see as a time of reform. These issues merit further study and extend beyond the scope of this introductory series. — His Grace Bishop Suriel presently serves as a Professor at the Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary in New Jersey, United States. We are honored to announce that Season Two of His Grace Bishop Suriel’s podcast, Coffee with Bishop Suriel, is also coming soon! Subscribe to Coffee with Bishop Suriel to receive the latest news. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

While containing invaluable insights into the life of the patriarch and his dedication to his pastoral duties — insights that his more formal treatises cannot express — the Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria remain a lesser-known work. Though many only survive until our day in fragments, these Letters, irrespective of their present completeness or condition, reveal personal reflections of the patriarch throughout the stages of his leadership of the Church in Egypt, as evidenced by his comments in them about his life in exile or other difficulties he encountered. Although the Letters occasionally document Athanasius’ personal responses to his situation, his primary responsibility was to inform the Church, through the Letters, regarding the dates for the celebration of Great Lent, Pascha, and the subsequent Feast of Pentecost. These announcements, from the See of Alexandria to the Christian world more generally, were part of a longstanding tradition begun by the third century and continuing under the formalization of the process at the Council of Nicaea.[1] Besides announcing the Feast dates, these annual letters to the faithful provided the bishops of Alexandria a platform from which to encourage their flock to a life of purity and holiness. In this paper, particular attention will be given to the recurring themes surrounding the Passover and its transformation into a Heavenly Banquet, as well as Athanasius’ exhortation to “keep the feast,” as he describes in his Festal Letters. In the style characteristic of Alexandrian theology, Athanasius repeats this powerful phrase — “keep the Feast” — throughout his Festal Letters, bringing to the fore the shadow of the Old Testament types brought to light and fulfilled in the life-giving suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ. Athanasius writes of the symbolic heavenly feast of the Christians: “For otherwise it is impossible to go up to Jerusalem and eat the Passover, unless we observe the fast of forty days.”[2] From this direct instruction, the seriousness of paying heed to the liturgical season is evident, and Athanasius uses his entire range of biblical understanding to communicate to the Church this urgent spiritual need. For Athanasius, the fasting period was an indispensable preparation without which the Feast could not be attained. In short, fasting is keeping the Feast, and true feasting is rejoicing in the presence of the Lord. Historical Background One of the issues discussed at the Council of Nicaea was the standardization of the dates for the Paschal Feast. The reasons given for the necessity of standardizing the calendar across the Christian world were twofold. First, the desire to separate the Christian celebration from the Jewish Passover; second, to promote unity across geographic regions by keeping the Feast on the same day. Constantine writes in a letter to those who were not present at the Council: “We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Savior has shown us another way,”[3] and “[f]or what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner?”[4] While tensions persisted between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria on this point — of calculating the date of the Paschal Feast — this Canon of Nicaea was an attempt at unification.[5] By the first few centuries after the ascension of Christ, Alexandria had already long enjoyed a distinguished reputation as a renowned center of learning and scholarly pursuit; it was this Alexandrian erudition, particularly in mathematics and astronomy, that enabled the Egyptian Church to carry out this service — of calculating and communicating, through annual Festal letters, the accurate date of the Paschal Feast each year — for the benefit of the greater Christian community.[6] The earliest evidence of this annual announcement is a fragment attributed to Pope Dionysius[7] (enthroned 247-264 CE), though the hagiography of Pope Demetrius (enthroned 189-232 CE) suggests that the custom of announcing the Festal dates began as early as the late second century.[8] The three largest collections of Festal letters are from Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril, respectively.[9] The Athanasian letters are preserved in Coptic and Syriac, with other fragments extant in Greek and Armenian. Manuscripts of the epistles from Theophilus and Cyril exist in the aforementioned languages as well as Latin and Arabic,[10] demonstrating the wide circulation of these correspondences. Since the last of the known Festal letter manuscripts dates to the fourteenth century, it may have been that the Alexandrian Church continued to honor the Nicene directive to calculate and announce the dates for Lent and the Feast at least until the Middle Ages.[11] The practice of issuing Festal Letters was revived in the Coptic Church in the twentieth century, but with a changed scope given that the annual Feast dates had by then become easily calculable and the transmission of messages had become fairly instantaneous. Thus, in modern times, the Festal Letters of the Popes of the Coptic Orthodox Church represent greetings and exhortations on the Feasts of the Nativity and the Resurrection, and are publicly read in Coptic Orthodox Churches all over the world during the Divine Liturgies of the Feasts of the Nativity and Resurrection. As it has been with the use of Festal Letters in modern times, there was also much ongoing change in the way that the Christians of Alexandria kept the Feast during the time of Athanasius himself.[12] As the liturgical calendar developed over time, the Paschal Fast had gradually expanded from a period of three days’ abstinence to a six-day fasting period, while the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating the three-day Paschal Feast between the 14th of Nisan and 16th of Nisan, at the same time as the Jewish Passover, was abolished at Nicaea in favor of upholding the more prevalent tradition of celebrating the Feast on a Sunday.[13] The Forty-Day Fast, Great Lent, was also at some point appended to the Pascha Week, being counted as part of the Great Fast. As far as modern scholars can determine, this was the structure of Great Lent at Athanasius’ time. For David Brakke, the impetus for attaching the Paschal Fast to the forty-day period of Lent lay squarely with the Alexandrian patriarch.[14] However, as with many other questions regarding early Church practices, we may never be able to localize the precise time that Great Lent and Pascha became conjoined, recognizing in any case that the adoption of liturgical customs generally tended to arise gradually and originate in local practice. Nonetheless, by the time Athanasius penned his Festal Letters, the Churches at Rome and Jerusalem also celebrated a multi-week Lenten season preceding the Pascha, and it appears that the Church in Egypt also upheld the same standard.[15] Keeping the Feast Of all the feasts included within the Church Calendar, the Resurrection Feast is the definitive celebration of Christianity, when the initiated — the baptized believers — participate in God’s victory over death through the life-giving passion of His only-begotten Son. Paul the Apostle writes to the Corinthians of the effectiveness of the Resurrection for the salvation of mankind: “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Cor 15:19-20). He continues that those “belonging to Christ” shall likewise be raised, and this salvation for humanity is God’s victory over death. We will repeatedly return to 1 Corinthians in our exploration of the Festal Letters as a focal point for Athanasius’ theological understanding and appreciation of the Feast of the Resurrection, particularly through Paul’s proclamation that “indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7-8). While Athanasius is not the only early Church Father to connect this passage from the Pauline letters to the typology surrounding the Exodus narrative of the Passover,[16] he undoubtedly provides one of the most thorough treatments of these concepts, with over a quarter of his Festal Letters making reference to the transformation of the Jewish Passover into the redemptive Passion of Jesus Christ. As we read in the passage above from 1 Corinthians — that preparing for Passover requires purging the old leaven from our lives[17] — the Lenten Fast was this time of preparation and transformation. During this period, the Christian faithful strive to transform their earthly situation to reflect their eager anticipation of the heavenly Jerusalem; the Feast of the Resurrection, being the “Christian Passover,” is therefore a time for Christians to draw near to God and to partake of the spiritual food and drink of that Feast. For Athanasius, God is the giver of the Feast (Letter X), Christ is our guide to the Feast (Letter XIV), and He is the one who summons us to attend the Feast (Letter VI). Further, as Athanasius discusses in these three epistles, the Feast itself is continual worship of God, and our diligent participation in it gives way to the manifestation of virtue. Finally, for Athanasius, the Lenten period, though full of fasting and vigils, is also a time of thanksgiving and praise. In Letter XIV, he therefore explains that the Feast requires temperance: “Therefore, let us too, when we come to the feast, no longer (hasten) to the old shadows — for they have been accomplished — nor as if to ordinary feasts, but let us hasten as if to the Lord, for the feast is ready, not thinking of it as pleasure and enjoyment for the belly, but as a manifestation of virtue. For the pagans’ feasts are filled with gluttony and complete indolence because that is when they think they are celebrating a feast — when they are lazy — and that is when they perform works of perdition — when they feast.”[18] Passover Typology A typological interpretation of Passover in Exodus 12 first comes to us from Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 5:7 and is found throughout Athanasius’ Festal Letters. At the heart of this typological interpretation of Passover is Christ as sacrifice. He takes the place of the lamb that protected the Hebrews from certain death, but not only this — Athanasius also describes, in Letter XLI, that God’s presence was with the Hebrews just as His presence is with the Christians in the Church: “But the Passover is proclaimed to us, so that we might remember the salvation that came during it, and it is completed through a lamb, without which there could be no Passover ... For it is not the blood of the lamb alone that hinders the destroyer and liberates the people from Egypt; rather it is the Word who was in the blood who accomplished these things.”[19] Thus, just as the Word was present in the lamb of the first Passover, the Word incarnate continues to be present as a source of thanksgiving in the bloodless Christian sacrifice. This offering of thanksgiving is not only giving additional attention to prayer, but it is a call to virtuosity of life and a promise from the people to fulfill the Law — indeed, keeping the command necessitates pious activity: “For [Moses] said, ‘[l]et the children of Israel celebrate the Passover,’ intending that, just as from a commandment, the action should be near to the word, while the word facilitates the action.”[20] By discussing the presence of God with His people in both the Old Testament and the new age, Athanasius turns the discussion to the posture of the people towards God: If God is in the Feast, how do we approach the Lamb? He writes: “Let us not proceed merely to the performance of the act of the feast, but as persons who are about to approach the divine Lamb and to touch the heavenly foods. Let us cleanse the hands and purify the body.”[21] However, it is not an outward cleansing, but an inward one that the devotional activity of the forty days seeks to achieve. For Athanasius, there is eternal import in this Feast along with its historical and typological aspects. The protection of the Israelites and the redemption of the Christians both point to the completion of salvation in the Parousia — the second coming of Christ — when the feast of God’s presence will be unending. In his Letters, Athanasius therefore discusses the Passover in four contexts: the deliverance of the Hebrews, the Last Supper of Christ with His disciples, the Christian Passover which the Church celebrates now, and the Heavenly Banquet prepared for the faithful. The symbolic meaning given to the actions of the Jews relates to the Christian attitude towards worship now, as well as the ultimate fulfillment of the union in heaven. For this reason, he writes, in his Letter XLV: “Just as all the old things were a type of the new things, present festival is a type of the joy above.”[22] In all four contexts, preparation precedes this heavenly union. There are numerous references to purging the old leaven and taking sustenance from the new, hearkening back to the passage from 1 Corinthians 5, signaling to the Christians that the Lenten Fast is the opportunity to prepare for the presence of the true Lamb. Athanasius therefore warns: “But the deceitful person and the one who is not pure of heart obtain nothing good ... Thus, Judas, although he thought that he observed the Passover, was alienated from ‘the upward call’ and the company of the apostles because he devised deceit against the Saviour. For the Law commanded that the Passover be eaten with care, but when he ate, he was caught by the devil.”[23] Without preparation and sincerity of purpose, the Feast becomes what Athanasius refers to in several letters as observation of the days without devotion. This can be contrasted with what awaits those who diligently prepare. For instance, in Letter XXVI Athanasius encourages the believers: “Let us walk in [these days] by preparing ourselves for the Lord and making straight his ways, as John said, by cleansing ourselves from all defilement and all sin, so that the Lord who commanded these things might come to us and dwell among us ... and walk among us and eat with us the Passover, while also promising us the true Passover and the joy in heaven with the saints.”[24] The Old Testament feast is thereby accomplished and transformed in the Christian Passover. Those who participate in the Christian Feast are therefore also awaiting the second transformation — of feasting in heaven with all the holy people of God. Preparing for the Feast with Spiritual Food and Drink With all this emphasis on eating the Passover as part of the Hebrews’ preparation for leaving Egypt and its tyranny, Athanasius does not neglect to turn his attention to the other types of eating that give physical reality to the Christian spiritual truth — that Christ is the bread of life and living water. His Festal Letter X was composed in the year 338 CE,[25] the year after Athanasius returned to Alexandria from his first exile; as such, the patriarch connects his trials with the Hebrews’ advancement through the wilderness, adding that by patience and the imitation of Christ there is victory for the faithful and virtuous. Athanasius discusses perseverance through adversity, writing: “In this same way those who suffer affliction temporarily in this place, after they have endured, pass over to the place of repose.”[26] He continues, in reference to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man: “Lazarus, on the other hand, after he had hungered for bread ground from wheat, in that place could find satisfaction with what is better than manna, the Lord who came down and said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven and gives life to human beings.’”[27] In crossing the Red Sea, the Hebrews were nourished by the lamb; on their journey through the wilderness, they were sustained by the manna from heaven. Again, there is a transference of this grace to Christians, who first receive redemption through the sacrifice of Christ and then abide in Him through continually receiving the blessed Eucharist. However, just as in Leviticus, where Moses warns that God will not accept all fasts and that the consequence for breaking His command is death, Athanasius distinguishes between the vices and virtues while likewise cautioning that we can eat in an unworthy manner. In Letter I, explaining that the virtuous soul will desire the food of the saints, he writes: “See, my brethren, how much a fast can do and how the law commands us to fast; for it is required that we fast not with the body alone, but also with the soul ... The two portions, the virtues and vices, are the soul’s foods, and it can eat the two foods and incline to either of the two, as it wills. For if it inclines toward the good, it will feed on the virtues: righteousness, temperance, continence, fortitude. As Paul says, ‘nourished on the word of truth,’ so too our Lord Jesus Christ being (so) nourished by these, said, ‘My food is to do the will of my Father who is in heaven’ ... And just as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, because he is heavenly bread, was food for the saints, according to this (passage), ‘Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.’”[28] Though lengthy, this passage is worth considering and meditating on for several reasons. It provides a concise example of Athanasius’ incarnational theology.[29] The human condition is that souls can choose to grow in either vice or virtue. The Lord Jesus Christ, being fully human, is also capable of making that choice, and always chooses the good. He always exercises Himself towards the good, which is fulfilling the will of God the Father. By our sanctification, through participating in His life, we also are empowered to feed on virtue. And so, we clearly see that for Athanasius, spiritual food is not about eating at all, but rather is about our imitation of Christ through godly action. Suffering trials with patience is indeed one path towards this goal, but even more than this is fasting — particularly, in the context of Athanasius’ Festal Letters generally, and the particular passage quoted above more specifically — Great Lent with purity, prayer, and charity will open the road to holiness even in the absence of external persecutions such as those Athanasius faced. Included within Athanasius’ imagery of several types of food, one can find many references to the living water or spiritual drink. In the same way that food for the soul can be either sinful or virtuous pursuits, Athanasius reinforces the role of choice with a quotation from Proverbs, connecting the call of Wisdom to the people with discipleship to the Lord Jesus Christ: “For sin too has its own peculiar bread of its death, to which it summons lovers of pleasure and senseless people, saying, ‘Take secret bread gladly, and sweet water of theft’ ... The Wisdom of God, that lover of human beings, prohibited these things.”[30] With this passage we see the link between sinful actions carried out in secret, and the exhortation to flee from what is secret, strange, and foreign to God. On the other hand, the saints will always thirst for the presence of God. Athanasius continues in Letter VII to link the Beatitudes — “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matt 5:6) — with the Lord Jesus’ address to the multitudes at the Feast of Tabernacles, when He said: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:37). Athanasius continues this passage: “For this reason, his disciples, who believed, he continually fed with his words and made them live by the nearness of his divinity.”[31] Finally, from Athanasius’ Letter VII, the sanctification of the people is completed in the reception of the Faith and of Christ Himself in the Eucharist: “Not only here, my brethren, is the bread the food of the righteous ones, nor are only the saints on earth nourished by such bread and blood, but we eat it in heaven as well, for the Lord is the food even of all the exalted spirits and angels, and he is the joy of the entire heavenly host ... he promises those who persevere with him in his trials, saying, ‘I promise to you, as my Father promised to me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.’”[32] Like in Letter I, the patriarch subtly leads the people to the concept of deification,[33] equipping the faithful with knowledge of the redemptive action of abiding in Christ, who alone is capable of providing nourishment for all. It does not belong to a man to say that he can satisfy the needs of mankind, so Athanasius hearkens back to creation in Letter XLIV: “And in the way that a river from a spring once gave water to drink in paradise, now it is he who gives the same gift of the Spirit to all people ... To say this does not belong to a human being, but to a living God who truly bestows life and gives the Holy Spirit.”[34] The readers of Athanasius’ Letters were thus reminded that the Lord who created the world provides nourishment for all, and by giving His own body and blood became the heavenly feast for all: “But the Lord is with us, He who is the basis for the holy feast. Let us gather and cry out to the Lord like the saints, not with our lips but in the depths of our hearts.”[35] For Athanasius, keeping the feast consists of devotion to prayer and discipline, and being nourished by the Word of God. As the faithful move toward Him through their inclination towards virtue, He Himself can “walk among us and eat with us the Passover while also promising us the true Passover and the joy in heaven with the saints.”[36] Heavenly Banquet We have thus far considered the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the Paschal lamb whose body and blood are the spiritual food and drink of the Eucharistic offering. Further, the Lenten period of fasting and ascetic practice is established as preparation for reconciliation and the unification with God. Without this period of preparation — typified by the Old Testament command to keep the Passover and New Testament invitation to be ready for the wedding feast — the believers will not be equipped for the heavenly banquet. In perfect adherence to Athanasius’ theology of sanctification, Orthodoxy of Christian understanding recognizes a dual movement between the believer and God. Through His Incarnation, God comes to humanity, and all humans are therefore called to respond by demonstrating, with purity of heart and a life of righteousness, that they are striving to move towards God, which gives Him the opportunity to fulfill His promise of inviting the faithful to His table in the kingdom of heaven. Athanasius teaches that the desired wedding garment is purity of mind and heart, just as he describes that the food and drink of the feast are the accumulation and manifestation of the virtues. He writes: “What follows, my beloved, is clear: Even we should accordingly come to such a feast, having clothed our minds not in filthy garments, but in pure ones. Indeed, we need for this purpose to clothe ourselves with our Lord Jesus, so that we might be able to celebrate the feast with him. And we are so clothed when we love virtue and are enemies to vice, when we practice continence and do away with licentiousness, when we embrace righteousness before injustice, when we honor sufficiency and are strong in mind, when we do not neglect the poor but open our doors to everyone, when we favor humility of mind and hate arrogance. For by these things in former times even Israel, after it had contended as if in a shadow, came to the feast.”[37] For Athanasius, adorning ourselves with holy deeds is like putting on the white wedding garment in preparation for the feast with the angels, as Athanasius repeatedly calls it, and moderation, soberness, charity, mercy, and humility are the garments of the saints. The children of Israel similarly prepared themselves to draw near to God, although now the shadows and types are brought to light and fulfillment. In Letter XXVIII, Athanasius repeats these themes, writing: “Having become victors over sin, let us similarly prepare ourselves with actions, so that we too might meet the one who comes and, having entered with him, partake of the immortal food and live eternally in the heavens.”[38] Within this context, it is apparent that Athanasius considers the Lenten Fast to be a feast of God’s presence. Although the Fast is a time of repentance and correction, it is also a time of increased thanksgiving. While we wait for the life of the coming age, Athanasius instructs his flock, we must celebrate in this life in anticipation of the next. “Therefore, my brethren, as we look forward to celebrating the feast of eternal joy in heaven, let us celebrate the feast now as well by rejoicing at all times, praying without ceasing, and giving thanks to the Lord in all circumstances,” the patriarch writes in a joyful epistle that followed his return to Alexandria after an absence of seven years.[39] The joy of the Lord and the feast of the heavenly banquet do not come before the trial, but rather these things are the reward for endurance and faithfulness. Athanasius elaborates in Letter XLI: “You are the ones who have endured with me in my trials ... Therefore, because we have now been summoned through the Gospel to this great and heavenly banquet, into that swept upper room, ‘let us cleanse ourselves.’”[40] In this way, Athanasius is clear that preparation is required for entering into the great feast of the Lord and that the consequences for negligence are dire. A Call to Diligence In Letter XXV, we receive both encouragement and a warning from the Church Father, who writes: “We will recline with the Lord, like his disciples, and take from the spiritual nourishment that he will provide for us, only if we eat and drink with him with perseverance and do not betray the truth through Jewish thoughts and myths, like the wretched Judas. For he became such because he did not eat the Passover reverently as is fitting.”[41] Though Athanasius spends a more significant portion of his Festal Letters in praise of good behavior, he also cautions in them specifically against observing the days merely for the sake of the days themselves and without a pious disposition, like the Jews, and assuming immoderate practices associated with pagan worship such as gluttony or drunkenness. In Letter VI, for instance, Athanasius describes how the Jewish people did not bear the fruits required by the master of the vineyard, writing: “Therefore, when the Lord cursed them because of their negligence, he removed from them the new moons.”[42] Earlier in this same epistle, Athanasius is clear that carelessness about the feast is not a problem only of the Jewish people, but rather Christians must also be thoughtful in their preparation to receive the feast. He therefore explicitly exhorts: “Whosoever is not disposed, treats the days as ordinary, and does not celebrate the feast, but ... finds fault with the grace and prefers to honor the days without supplicating the Lord who during these days saved [him] let him by all means listen ... to the apostolic voice that rebukes him: ‘You are observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.’ For the feast does not exist on account of the days; rather, we celebrate the feast on account of the Lord, who suffered during them on our behalf.”[43] In Letter VI, Athanasius relies on three references from the Gospels to reinforce his point that God’s grace requires diligent action on the part of man — the parable of the vineyard, the healing of the ten lepers, and the parable of the talents. In each case, the patriarch is asking his flock to ready itself for the feasts of the angels and saints by fulfilling their duty, with thankfulness and to the best of their ability. Even in the case of negligence, however, there is repentance available for the sinner who comes to himself and returns to his father’s house. Athanasius posits the question of who is worthy of being invited to the Lord’s table in Letter VII, reflecting on the parable of the Prodigal Son. Following his examination of the confession of the son to his father, he writes: “then [the son] will be deemed worthy of more than what he requested, for the father does not receive him as a hired hand ... but kisses him as a son, gives him life as if from the dead, deems him worthy of the divine banquet, and gives him his former precious robe, so that on this account there is singing and joy in the paternal home.”[44] Through repentance, the son reckons with his internal conflict and his desperate external circumstances, and has victory through returning to his father’s care. While facing extraordinary hardship in his varied exiles, Athanasius simultaneously writes to the Christians of Alexandria to persevere. One example of the personal touch afforded to him by the format of the festal announcements is Letter XIII, wherein he writes: “Even now, my beloved brethren, I will not be slow to announce to you the saving feast ... For although those opponents of Christ have oppressed you, along with us, with afflictions and sorrows ... because God is comforting us through our mutual faith, behold I write to you even from Rome. Even as I am celebrating the feast with the brethren here, I am celebrating in will and spirit with you as well, for we send up prayers in common to God, who has granted us not only to believe in him, but also now to suffer for him.”[45] Athanasius uses the announcement for this year 341 CE to encourage and strengthen his people, reminding them that the trial is temporary and the joy that awaits is eternal: “When we are tested by these things, therefore, let us not be separated from the love of God, but let us celebrate the feast even now, my beloved, not as if we are bringing in a day of suffering, but one of joy for Christ, by whom we are nourished every day.”[46] The patriarch asks the faithful not only to patiently endure, but also to be joyful and thrive in the feast, knowing that Christ our true Passover suffered for the sake of all mankind. Likewise in Letter III, for the Lent of year 342 CE, also during a time of extended exile and absence from Alexandria: “For the one who serves the Lord ought to be diligent and not careless or, rather, (ought to be) inflamed, so that, after he has destroyed all material sin with an ardent spirit, he may be able to approach God.”[47] He continues by pointing to Moses as an example of an ardent spirit purified by the devouring fire of God. Athanasius quotes the Apostle, writing: “Therefore the blessed Paul, because he does not let the grace of the Spirit that has been given to us to grow cold, exhorts, writing, ‘Do not quench the Spirit.’ For this is how we will remain partakers of Christ — if we hold fast until the end the Spirit (that was given) at the beginning.”[48] Once again, we discover Athanasius’ teaching about sanctification and man’s participation in his own salvation in an indirect way; the struggle towards purity requires conscientious action with fiery, unrelenting perseverance, as described in this Letter. Indeed, by the Christians’ observation of the feast with gladness and thanksgiving, the world will see that Christians are imitators of Christ and be amazed, according to Athanasius. In the following passage, Athanasius reveals that a consequence of the personal sanctification of putting on Christ is that the Christian feast will be a transformative light — an example of holy, sober joy: “The Lord’s wise servants, however, who have truly clothed themselves with the human being who has been created in God, have become recipients of the evangelical words ... ‘Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.’ They celebrate the feast in such a proper manner that even the unbelievers, when they ‘see their good order,’ will say, ‘God is really among them.’”[49] Athanasius layers the transformation of the Passover from a shadow only available to the Hebrews to the light of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice available to all and visible by all. Although this feast is marked by the forty days of Lenten fasting and is a time of temperance and self-regulation, it ultimately will be further elevated to the heavenly banquet of the kingdom of God and the redemption of all creation. Regarding this reconciliation of the heavenly and earthly, Athanasius writes: “The entire creation keeps the feast, my brethren ... on account of the enemies’ destruction, and of our salvation. And rightly so: For if there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, what would there not be over the abolition of sin and the resurrection of the dead? What a feast! And how great heaven’s joy!”[50] — [1] Athanasius, The Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria, with the Festal Index and the Historia Acephala. Translated by David Brakke and David M. Gwynn. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press), 18. [2] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 89. [3] Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. 14 Second Series. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 56. [4] Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 14, 55. [5] Ibid, 55. [6] Allen, Pauline.  “The Festal Letters of the Patriarchs of Alexandria: Evidence for Social History in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.” In Alexandrian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Doru Costache, Philip Kariatlis, and Mario Baghos.  (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015), 174. [7] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 19. [8] Mikhail, Maged S.A. “The Evolution of Lent in Alexandria and the Alleged Reforms of Patriarch Demetrius” In Copts in Context: Negotiating Identity, Tradition and Modernity, ed. Nelly van Doorn-Harder (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2017), 169-180, 252-258. [9] Allen, 174. [10] Ibid, 175. Certainly the Arabic Letters represent later translations and could not have arisen contemporaneously to the Letters’ authorship. [11] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 21. [12] Bradshaw, Paul F, and Maxwell E Johnson. The Origins of Feasts, Fasts, and Seasons in Early Christianity. Alcuin Club Collections, 86. London: SPCK, 2011. [13] See The Synodal Letter of Nicaea. [14] Brakke, David. Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. [15] Bradshaw, Paul and Maxwell Johnson, 92. Whether the Christians in Egypt fell short of the standard practice as it was carried out in the other Churches in Athanasius’ time, and whether such shortcoming, if extant, was a matter of official practice of spiritual laxity, remains an open question, with the question arising in part from St. Athanasius’ comment, in Letter XII, that “[t]he Egyptians were made a laughing-stock because they, of all the world, did not fast during the forty days before Pascha.” In this Letter, Athanasius writes to Serapion, bishop of Thmuis, from Rome, in 340 A.D., imploring the Egyptian Christians to fast all forty days of Lent, as the Christians did in Rome. Athanasius’ Festal Letters generally paint the picture of a Great Lent composed of six weeks before the Feast of the Resurrection, with Saturdays and Sundays not being considered fast days​, although the dietary practice of the Fast was upheld on those days, in light of abstinence being forbidden on all Saturdays and Sundays of the year, with the exception of Paschal Saturday. [16] Other patristic writers that make the connection between the Exodus narrative and the Resurrection Feast include Melito of Sardis in On Pascha and Origen in Homilies on Leviticus. [17] Of note is that one of the two Pauline Epistle passages read during Paschal Saturday, or Apocalypse Saturday, in the Coptic Orthodox Church is excerpted from 1 Corinthians 5:7-13, beginning: “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). [18] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 67. [19] Ibid, 211. [20] Ibid, 64. [21] Ibid, 78. [22] Ibid, 230. [23] Ibid, 88. [24] Ibid, 185. [25] Ibid, 107. [26] Ibid, 113. [27] Ibid, 113. [28] Ibid, 51. [29] For further discussion see Wahba, Matthias F.  The Doctrine of Sanctification in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letters. Cranston, Rhode Island: St. Mary & St. Mena Coptic Orthodox Church, 1988.  Also to examine how this theological stance continued to be delivered through the Festal Letters, see Morgan, Jonathan. “The Role of Asceticism in Deification in Cyril of Alexandria’s Festal Letters.” The Downside Review 135, no. 3 (2017): 144–53. [30] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 95. [31] Ibid, 97. [32] Ibid, 98. [33] Deification in the Athanasian and, more generally, the Alexandrian tradition, is in reference to the natural receipt of the perfected believers of the attributes of immortality and incorruptibility, which attributes are God’s alone by nature, but which He grants to those who have a share in the resurrection to life at the last day. The notion in the early patristic Fathers is far removed from the later developments of the concept that arose in the West. [34] Athanasius, The Festal Letters, 229. [35] Ibid, 185. [36] Ibid, 185. [37] Ibid, 71. [38] Ibid, 192. [39] Ibid, 167. [40] Ibid, 213. [41] Ibid, 182. [42] Ibid, 85. [43] Ibid, 81. [44] Ibid, 99. [45] Ibid, 137. [46] Ibid, 143. [47] Ibid, 147. [48] Ibid, 147. [49] Ibid, 177. [50] Ibid, 87. — Bibliography Primary Sources Athanasius. The Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria, with the Festal Index and the Historia Acephala. Translated by David Brakke and David M. Gwynn. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022) Athanasius. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. IV. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998) Eusebius of Caesarea. The History of the Church: A New Translation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2019. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. 14 Second Series.  (Grand Rapids.: Eerdmans, 1983) Secondary Sources Allen, Pauline.  “The Festal Letters of the Patriarchs of Alexandria: Evidence for Social History in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.” In Alexandrian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Doru Costache, Philip Kariatlis, and Mario Baghos.  (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015) 174-189. Bradshaw, Paul F, and Maxwell E Johnson. The Origins of Feasts, Fasts, and Seasons in Early Christianity. Alcuin Club Collections, 86. London: SPCK, 2011. Brakke, David. Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Brakke, David. “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter. Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon.” The Harvard Theological Review 103, no. 1 (2010): 47–66. Daise, Michael A. “‘Christ Our Passover’ (1 Corinthians 5:6–8): The Death of Jesus and the Quartodeciman Pascha.” Neotestamentica 50, no. 2 (2016): 507–26. Demacopoulos, George E. Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church. University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Gywnn, David. “Patronage Networks in the Festal Letters of Athanasius of Alexandria” In Episcopal Networks in Late Antiquity: Connection and Communication Across Boundaries, ed. Cvetković, Carmen Angela and Gemeinhardt, Peter. (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2019) 101-115. Mikhail, Maged S.A. “The Evolution of Lent in Alexandria and the Alleged Reforms of Patriarch Demetrius” In Copts in Context:Negotiating Identity, Tradition and Modernity, ed. Nelly van Doorn-Harder (South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2017), 169-180, 252-258. Morgan, Jonathan. “The Role of Asceticism in Deification in Cyril of Alexandria’s Festal Letters.” The Downside Review 135, no. 3 (2017): 144–53. Meawad, Stephen M. "Fasting Reconsidered: St. John Chrysostom and Modern Science on Fasting." Presented at “The Conference in Preparation for the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church,” (2016). Wahba, Matthias F.  The Doctrine of Sanctification in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letters. Cranston, Rhode Island: St. Mary & St. Mena Coptic Orthodox Church, 1988. Widdicombe, Peter. The Journal of Theological Studies 47, no. 2 (1996): 678–81. Wilken, Robert Louis. “The Inevitability of Allegory.” Gregorianum 86, no. 4 (2005): 742–53. — Jessica Ryder-Khalil serves at St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church in Gainesville, FL. Before becoming a homemaker for her beloved husband and four children, her professional background was in teaching English as a Second Language. She is currently pursuing a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree at St. Athanasius & St. Cyril Theological School (ACTS). DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

Since its earliest years, Christians have suffered nearly constant persecution — socially, financially, and physically — due to their religious beliefs. During one period of reprieve that commenced in the early fourth century with the enactment of the Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius, the monastic movement began to flourish as many individuals flocked to the desert to practice Christian spirituality most fully. Scholars have long debated the inspiration for this movement: were early Christians driven to monasticism to be united with God, or was their newfound lifestyle simply an escape from the threat of persecution? Scholarly literature suggests the latter. [1]  Such a view, it should be noted, is not a mere interpretation of the sociocultural atmosphere during the early monastic movement, but draws inspiration mainly from historical hagiographies [2] such as Jerome’s Life of Paulus. [3]   However, while the motivations of every individual who sought monasticism are not documented, for spiritually devout monks, withdrawal into the desert was generally not a means of escaping persecution or other worldly difficulties, but the pursuit of God in what they regarded to be a deeper or more perfect way. These individuals, in fact, continued to suffer persecution alongside their Christian counterparts in society and were subjected to various forms of conflict while fulfilling their ascetical responsibilities. In reviewing the applicable literature, it rather becomes evident that an escape from the difficult circumstances of persecution was not among the primary motives for the Christian monastic movement. Persecution in the Roman Empire Persecution, or the oppression of an individual or group in the form of hostility and ill-treatment due to their religious beliefs, is embedded in the history of the Church since its establishment by the Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles. The Lord Himself spoke regarding the persecution of His followers: “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.” [4] At the time of the Roman Empire, persecution was especially prevalent, and Christians confronted it in various ways: some voluntarily apostatized ( sacrificiati ), [5]  some bribed officials for a certificate without actually offering sacrifices ( libellatici ), [6]  some confessed when accused of being Christians ( stantes ), [7]  some voluntarily confessed their faith, and some proactively fled. The most controversial approach was that of fleeing. Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and Cyprian of Carthage, among several others, escaped persecution this way. On the other hand, some, such as Tertullian, opposed this approach, ultimately classifying it as a weaker form of apostasy. [8]  Pertinently, Tertullian does not mention among those who fled persecution the men and women who withdrew from the city to practice asceticism. Such individuals, on the other hand, were understood to have been regularly practicing a proverbial martyrdom, as depicted in Athanasius’s Life of Antony . Monasticism in the Roman Empire The word monk  in its earliest form was not wholly associated with religious matters. Early evidence from Egyptian papyri demonstrates that the term monk  was a designation for merchants and property owners, as well as those who were celibate for religious reasons. [9]  This emphasis on celibacy would become a foundational prerequisite for those who sought monasticism and the detachment from worldly cares and carnal lusts that such a life offered. [10]   Historically, while the first group that may be considered monks in the popular Christian sense is found in discipleship to Antony the Great, at the end of the third century, the major uptick in monasticism did not occur until 318 C.E., seven years after Roman persecution ended. Prior to Antony, and as seen in the account of his Life , Christian monasticism was associated with recluse civilians who did not withdraw into the desert or completely isolate themselves from the secular world, but instead renounced secular life through asceticism, the practice of severe self-discipline. [11] Inspired by a few men in the third and fourth centuries who decided to abandon the world to serve God in a more perfect way, Christian monasticism was born. [12] Athanasius uses the word anchoresis (“withdrawal from the world”)   to signify Antony’s departure into the desert. In its secular meaning, this word could indicate withdrawal from politics, battle, or even tax evasion. [13] While it is expected that some individuals withdrew to monasticism to escape such grievances and persecutions, this notion cannot be considered characteristic of the entire movement. The emphases found in the documented lives of early monks are consistent with philosophical tradition, stoicism, and the cultural wisdom of their time. Thus, monasticism served as a way for its adherents to return to their roots and pursue a more perfect way of life with God as their focus. Philosophy was understood as the pursuit of the perfect way of life, which was a prerequisite for “pure knowledge and illumination by the divine [God].” [14]  Such a life was not characterized by one’s intellectual activity, but rather by detachment from secular, social, and political affairs, as well as the renunciation of wealth and bodily pleasures. [15] These characteristics are explicitly seen in the lives of the monks of the early monastic period. For instance, Antony the Great gave away all of his wealth in order to follow God according to what he deemed, as a result of his sound Christian upbringing, to be the best way. The recluse Palamon, who served as a mentor to Pachomius, likewise exemplified detachment from the world, living in seclusion at the edge of civilization. In addition, common practices in the lives of monks, such as strict dietary rules, frequent recitation and memorization of Scripture, and solitude, were emphasized as being necessary to this Philosophy, and monks were regarded as pursuers of the “philosophical life” — following the “true philosophy” that is Christianity; [16] thus, there are many descriptions, in the literature arising from the period of early monasticism, of monks as successors, and even competitors, to the ancient philosophers. [17] Ultimately, monasticism granted the monks freedom from the obligations of civic life so that they could become solely concerned with the pursuit and worship of God. The Early Monks And Civic Life Escape from religious persecution and suffering in the Roman Empire during the rise of monasticism required the complete abandonment of one’s sociocultural milieu. This, however, was not common amongst monastics in late antiquity — monks during this period did not always live in complete isolation from society. In fact, documents from this period depict early monastics living in cities and towns and participating in economic and social interactions within them. [18]  These traditions predate even the establishment of organized Christian monasticism itself, and are known through the early monastic hagiographies, such as Athanasius’s Life of Antony , where Athanasius narrates that Antony sought the apprenticeship of holy men living on the outskirts of his village who practiced the ascetical discipline and were renowned for their virtuosity. [19]  The same approach was later used by Pachomius, who apprenticed himself under a local anchorite named Palamon. [20]  Thus, there were in those days recluses who practiced a form of monasticism without full retreat into the wilderness. The withdrawal of these individuals from the world was not necessarily physical, but emotional, mental, and, most importantly, spiritual. Indeed, the early monks emphasized the renunciation, and not an abandonment or disdain, of traditional forms of social life — marriage, private ownership, and civic responsibilities — and established for themselves instead a singular focus on spiritual nourishment. [21]  As previously mentioned, their pursuit of the monastic life was therefore not borne out of an escape from persecution and suffering, since they continued in large part to live in and engage with mainstream society, but instead was due to their longing to worship God in a more perfect way, removed from the distractions of the world. The Early Monks as Mediators in Conflict Further evidence for the falsity of the proposition that the monks were those who sought to escape persecution and conflict is their frequent involvement as mediators in societal, political, and religious conflicts. Soon after the rise of monasticism in the second half of the third century, monasticism became a topic of discussion at several councils in the East, and monks played a pivotal role in important controversies that arose in the Church. [22]  Monks participated in both local and ecumenical councils, such as the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople, and the First Council of Ephesus, and were deeply involved, even apart from participating in such formal proceedings, in addressing theological issues that arose in their time. It was, after all, the unshakeable doctrinal foundation of the Christians living near the White Monastery, which foundation was primarily attributable to the educational and pastoral efforts of Shenoute of Atripe and the monks of his monastic federation, that Nestorius was eventually exiled to nearby Panopolis, being incarcerated at Psinblje. [23]   Due to their theological proficiency and learnedness, monks were frequently called upon by presiding bishops to address local theological disputes. For instance, Antony the Great was called upon by Athanasius of Alexandria to preach against Arianism in Egypt, a heretical teaching that God the Father and God the Son, or the Logos, are not of the same substance, or nature. There are several other examples of the same sort of reliance by bishops on monks who were renowned for their soundness of doctrine and persuasiveness of character in combatting heresy. Athanasius himself, in facing the Arian heresy, introduced the practice of ordaining monks to the bishopric by carefully selecting such monks to be ordained bishops in order to assist his efforts at curtailing the spread of the heresy and securing the dioceses against its infiltration. Far from being an escape from persecution and suffering, then, monasticism was instead the pursuit of the presence of God, and its adherents’ consecration of mind and heart to God and the things of God enabled them, by His grace, to excel in understanding, teaching, and wisdom such that they were indispensable to the Church in the face of theological conflict. The involvement of monks in the affairs of the mainstream Church, moreover, was not limited to theological or doctrinal matters. For instance, the White Monastery, under the guidance of Shenoute of Atripe, opened its doors to 20,000 Christians and provided them both physical and spiritual nourishment after their village was raided. [24] The monks also served as arbitrators in civil disputes and, given their largely unrivaled piety and the reputation that many of them had for being granted special spiritual gifts, were also often asked to intervene on behalf of those in need, such as the poor and the sick. [25]  Indeed, following the establishment of communal monasticism under Pachomius in the early fourth century, monasteries frequently became the spiritual centers of villages and urban quarters, and places where local inhabitants could attend services, seek accommodations, or request help in times of need, whether medical, financial, spiritual, or otherwise. [26]   In all, the monks’ involvement in the affairs of the Church and their fellow believers in these ways attest not to their escape from persecution or societal existence, but instead their even more intimate involvement with the hardships and tribulations that arose in their days that resulted from their monastic vocation. What is more, even if some among the early monks sought out this manner of life to escape societal conflicts, they ironically found themselves all the more acquainted with it because of their monasticism. Thus, as the monks retreated further from the world spiritually, they became all the more deeply ingrained within its societal, political, and religious conflict, enduring all things, and becoming all things to all men for the sake of Christ, due to their understanding that, in the words of the founder of their way of life, “…our life and our death is with our neighbor.” [27] Monasticism as New Martyrdom The focus on suffering and tribulation as a path to glory and victory is a common theme in Christianity and was put into practice most notably by the Christian monks, who understood and approached these common experiences in the hope of the glory which God would bestow on the faithful who endure suffering for His sake. As such, they could not have abandoned suffering by their pursuit of the monastic life, but rather, by retreating to the desert, they created for themselves a prayerful oasis flowing with the waters of spiritual nourishment. Many teachers of the early Church, such as Cyprian of Carthage, in submission to the teaching of the Lord, emphasized the Christian believers’ absolute non-conformity to the world and the glory that is realized by them through their experience of tribulations. [28]  These principles are vividly represented in the lives of the early monks, who renounced traditional forms of social life in choosing to suffer for the sake of God. Besides the focus on suffering and glory, the early Christian Fathers and teachers, such as Cyprian and Origen, also emphasized the necessity of surrendering all attachment to wealth and material possessions in order to attain perfection. [29]  This way of poverty was a foundational component of monastic life: most notably, Antony the Great, upon hearing the encounter of the rich man with Christ in the Gospel according to Matthew, [30]  went and sold all his possessions before withdrawing into the desert. Furthermore, while representing a personal opinion of his and not the teaching of the early Church generally, Tertullian asserts, in his De Fuga , that persecution is ordained by God and therefore good, [31]  and accordingly, should not be fled but instead embraced. [32] The monks can be understood to have taken such advice most literally — abandoning their possessions and the comforts and pleasures of the world to pursue labor and suffering for the sake of cultivating virtue in their lives to the end of attaining to Christ at the Last Day. The practice of accepting suffering for the sake of Christ cannot be separated from the life of the monk, whose transition from civic life to monasticism resembles the transition from worldly suffering to spiritual suffering. Monasticism, similarly to martyrdom, thus epitomized for the early believers complete renunciation of the world. [33]  While martyrs endured a physical death, monks associated the desert with a place of burial. [34]  The desert represented complete and utter dependence on God, [35]  allowing the monks to choose their own means of suffering through relative withdrawal, austere dietary practices, and physical labor. The adoption of the monastic life therefore became one of many paths by which Christian men and women strove to put into practice in their own lives the command of their Master to follow Him. [36] Following Antony’s death and Athanasius authoring the Life of Antony, and in light of the cessation of the systematic persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire that characterized much of the preceding century, [37] one particular motif regarding monasticism became especially widespread: monks were the successors of the martyrs. Rather than facing a physical, imminent death, the monks “died” daily. [38] Antony himself describes dying daily as the way a monk learns to “wean himself of craving, of possessions, of grudges, of sin.” [39]  This theme became prominent in early monastic literature, [40] teaching fellow monks and civilian Christians alike that “to die is to allow Christ to live within us.” [41] Ultimately, the desert provided a transformative setting for the soul’s encounter with God, [42] allowing monks to forsake the traditional way of life in order to suffer and worship God in what they deemed a more perfect way. Monasticism as Flight From Persecution Tertullian classifies fleeing from persecution as a weaker form of apostasy. While Tertullian’s view may have been true in some cases, it is a significant generalization and cannot be considered applicable to all Christians who fled due to persecution, especially those who became monastics. For instance, Jerome writes, in his hagiographical Life of Paul of Thebes , that Paul of Thebes fled to the desert to await an end to persecution. [43]  However, Paul never returned to society even after the persecution ceased. Rather, “making a virtue of necessity,” he dedicated his life completely to God, becoming the first “hermit.” [44] While Tertullian argues that most New Testament references to persecution emphasize endurance and patience, not withdrawal, [45]  he fails to understand the “virtue of necessity” as encapsulated in the Life of Paul. Tertullian rightly justifies the idea of apostasy in those fleeing persecution for the sake of their secular livelihood. However, this idea cannot be applied to those who used this opportunity to strengthen their relationship with God by choosing to suffer for Him in another way. The spiritually devout monk did not withdraw to the desert to escape persecution, but to choose his or her own means of suffering for and worshiping God. However, not all monks retreated for the right reasons. The idea of monasticism as a means of escape from the demands of civic life was quite prevalent following the establishment of monasteries. In the fourth century, this escalated to the point where the emperor ordered the removal of many individuals who fled to monasteries to escape public duties. [46] Early in Pachomius’s communities, he encountered many such individuals, who did not take the spiritual life seriously and caused abuse to Pachomius specifically and the community more generally. [47] Once these began to neglect the synaxis (assembly for scriptural reading and prayer), he drove them away with the support of the local bishop. [48] Subsequently, Pachomius and his monks began to discreetly interview monks entering the monastery regarding their motives, [49]  ensuring that these individuals came with pure intentions. Further, while monasticism appeared on its surface to be an escape from civic responsibilities or other secular hardships, it led to more difficult spiritual duties. Monks practiced strict dietary measures, performed physical labor for long periods of time, and endured difficult living conditions. Inevitably, their toil was described as warfare, not necessarily against the body only, but for the body and spirit. [50] While monasticism may have been seen as an “easy way out” by some individuals, those truly rooted in its practices abandoned secular difficulties for spiritual ones, which allowed them to serve God in the manner most suited to their desired ends. Conclusion For the spiritually devout, withdrawal to the desert in the late third and early fourth centuries was an opportunity to choose one’s own means of suffering for and worshipping God and not a means to escape persecution or other worldly difficulties. Monasticism therefore served as a new sort of martyrdom, instilling in monks a willingness to suffer for the sake of their spiritual growth while providing them a place to worship God without worldly distraction. Nonetheless, out of their love for God and thus their brothers and sisters in the world, many monks, despite their chosen way of life, remained involved with the civic community through social service and their involvement in religious issues. They therefore did not accomplish an end to persecution and suffering through their so-called escape, and while there were many monks who sought to retreat to the desert to relieve themselves of their secular responsibilities, these were typically rejected from the monastic community and forced to return to their own villages and cities. Monastic practice today closely resembles its original form. There continue to be monastic anchorites today who follow in the footsteps of Antony the Great, who became “the defining moment for monasticism and the measure of true spirituality.” [51]  Likewise, monks living in communal monasteries are now found all over the world. Monastics today also continue to serve their local communities, whether through religious or social services, or simply by their prayers for the people. Truly, the Church today, and indeed all of world history, would not be as it is without the invaluable contributions of Christian monasticism. The Desert Fathers, or Desert Monks, were early Christian hermits living in Egypt who laid the foundation for Christian monasticism as we know it today. The Apophthegmata Patrum , Sayings of the Desert Fathers, is a collection of their wisdom, sayings, and stories, all of which have helped shape theological terminology, monastic practices, and scriptural interpretation since the establishment of the monastic movement. These sayings continue to be treasured until today for all Christians. Accordingly, monasticism has long been, and continues to be, an ever-integral component of the life of the Church in every generation. — [1] Talbot, Alice-Mary. “ An Introduction to Byzantine Monasticism. ” Illinois Classical Studies , vol. 12, no. 2, University of Illinois Press, 1987, pp. 229–41. [2] A hagiography is a written account of the life of a saint. [3] Jerome writes of Paul, “As the storm of persecution rumbled on, he withdrew to a more distant and isolated spot.” (Alexandrinus, Athanasius, et al. Early Christian Lives . Penguin Books, 1998). [4] Matthew 24:9. [5] Cyprian, Laps. 7-8, (CCSL 3:224-225). [6] Tertullian, Fug. 12 (CCSL 2:1153-55). [7] Cyprian, Laps. 3, (CCSL 3:222). [8]  Sutcliffe, Ruth. “ To Flee or Not to Flee? Matthew 10:23 and Third Century Flight in Persecution. ” Scrinium  14.1 (2018), pp. 133-160.   Note : Tertullian’s hardline view on this issue has been attributed at least in part to the influence of Montanism on his religious thinking and practices beginning in the middle part of his life, which ultimately led him to separate from the Church and join the Montanist schismatics. [9]  Rubenson, Samuel. “Asceticism and Monasticism, I: Eastern.” The Cambridge History of Christianity , edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 637–668. Cambridge History of Christianity. [10] Lemeni, Daniel. “ The Untimely Tomb: Death in the Spirituality of the Desert. ” Hortus Artium Medievalium , vol. 23, no. 2, 2017, pp. 532–537. [11] Words that were initially secular in meaning began to have religious connotations, and eventually denotations, through the lives of these individuals. Askesis , “to exercise,” was initially used to describe physical training in preparation for athletic contests. Eventually, this word adopted a philosophical, ethical, and spiritual dimension ( See  Kling, David W. The Bible in History : How the Texts Have Shaped the Times . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Web.). Ascetics, in the Christian sense, were therefore those who practiced self-discipline, typically in seclusion at the outskirts of their villages, for religious purposes. [12] Alexandrinus, xii. [13] Harmless, William. Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 64. [14] Rubenson, 639. [15] Rubenson, 639. [16] See e.g. , Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 8.1. [17] Rubenson, 640. [18]  Rubenson, 638. [19] Harmless, 118. [20] Harmless 118. [21] Rubenson, 638. [22] Rubenson, 637. [23] Bibawy, A. “St. Shenoute of Atripe and His Monastic Order.” Orthodox Monasticism Past and Present , edited by John A. McGuckin. Gorgias Press LLC, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015, pp. 257-258. [24] For a discussion of this event, see  A.G. Lopez, Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty: Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict, and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt . Berkeley, 2013, pp. 57-62. [25] Rubenson, 641.  [26] Talbot, 230. [27] Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers . Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1975, p. 3. [28]  See, e.g.,  Cyprian, Fort.  8-10 (CCSL 3:195-102). [29] Kling, 19. [30] The story of the rich man is found in Matthew 19:16-22 and portrays a rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to attain eternal life. After a brief interaction, Jesus replies saying, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” [31] Tertullian, Fug. 1, 2 (CCSL 2:1135-39). [32] This view — that Christians should not flee persecution — was undoubtedly the minority opinion among the teachers of the early Church. In fact, Tertullian’s own dissatisfaction with the spiritual laxity that he believed had overtaken the mainstream Church, which contributes to this opinion of his, ultimately led him to apostatize and join the Montanist sect for its more rigorous practices. [33] Lemeni, 535. [34] Lemeni, 532. [35] Lemeni, 533. [36] Kling, 20. [37] The first empire-wide, official persecution of Christians was enacted by Decius in 250 A.D. and largely persisted until 313 A.D. with the enactment of the Edict of Milan by Constantine and Licinius, which officially put an end to Christian persecution in the Empire and granted freedom of religion to all. [38] 1 Corinthians 15:31. [39] Harmless, 70. [40] Harmless, 70. [41] Lemeni, 547. [42] Kling, 33. [43] Alexandrinus, 77. [44] Alexandrinus, 77. [45]  Sutcliffe, 135. Sutcliffe mentions the following New Testament passage in support of this notion: Hebrews 11:37-38; Matthew 2:13-15, 19-22; Luke 4:28-30; Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 13:50; 14:6, 19-21; 2 Corinthians 11:30-33. [46] Talbot, 232. [47] Harmless, 120. [48] Harmless, 120. [49] Harmless, 126. [50] Kling, 34-35. [51] Kling, 39. — Mark Dawod serves as a Reader at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Jersey City, New Jersey. He is currently a student at Princeton University, pursuing a career in medicine. This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for "The New Testament and Christian Origins," offered by Dr. Jonathan Henry in Fall 2021 at Princeton University. Cover Image: The Monastery of St. Bishoy, captured by Monica Saleeb. Image Original. DossPress.com  is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

His Grace Bishop Suriel Bishop of Melbourne, Australia and Professor at Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary, New Jersey, United States The Coptic Church that first began to lay down roots in the lands of immigration approximately 50 years ago is now quite established in the West, no longer seen as a “diaspora” but rather a fully established Church with numerous dioceses and patriarchal jurisdictions throughout the western world. We as Coptic Christians are now members of truly “national” churches in each of the countries where Copts have settled. In light of this rapid international expansion, our call to ministry in the 21st century Coptic Church, particularly in the formative field of theological education, poses novel, nuanced, and critical challenges — challenges that are significantly amplified today when compared either to education as it was carried out in the Church historically, whether the Coptic Church specifically or the Christian Church more generally until the middle of the twentieth century, or to when the first Coptic churches were established in the West. These challenges raise serious and pertinent questions regarding theological education and the formation of future clergy, servants, and Church leaders, which formation is essential to the integrity and propriety of the spirit and method by which those who comprise these categories of servants carry out and administer the service of the Church, and to the preservation and transmission of sound doctrine in the pedagogical aspects of the Church’s service and mission. The Coptic Church in her rich history and heritage is certainly not alien to challenges, having faced and overcome a myriad of obstacles and wholly unfavorable odds if only to survive until the present day. In each period she has faced unique challenges, such as those which she must now traverse, and reflecting on how the Church has dealt with these challenges historically and methodologically can supply us with many important and instructive lessons to guide us in addressing today’s concerns. To this end, I wish to focus in this series on two historical periods: one ancient — the School of Alexandria — and one modern — the work of St. Habib Girgis in theological education — in order to draw from these some thoughts, reflections, and a proposed path forward for Coptic Orthodox Christian theological education in the 21st century in the West. In books five and six of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea tells of the didaskalion of Alexandria — what we like to think of today as the School of Alexandria — and enumerates its heads Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen. He presents what at first glance seems like a uniform succession of leaders in an ecclesiastical institution, and his readers are tempted to ponder the size of its supposed campus. The historical evidence, however, does not add up. A more careful analysis of the sources leads us to a rather different picture of this formidable entity: there are no buildings, classrooms, or desks; instead there are learned teachers and avid students eager to hear the word of God. The matter may perhaps upset some people, yet an honest assessment of our sources leads us to a much deeper appreciation of the beauty of the ancient Christian heritage. Ronald Heine, who published an extensive study on Origen through Oxford University Press titled Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church, presents the most plausible picture of the state of affairs in the milieu of Christianity in Alexandria. He speaks of “schools” instead of one singular school, at once acknowledging both the diversity and rich complexity of Christian teaching in that cosmopolitan city. There were likely five famous Christian teachers in second- and third-century Alexandria: Basilides, Valentinus, Pantaenus (who is designated by Origen as “the Hebrew”), Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, who was a disciple and student of Clement of Alexandria and who would himself emerge as a teacher early in the third century and ultimately become the most formidable scholar of the Christian East. Two of the five teachers mentioned above, Basilides and Valentinus, propagated teachings incompatible with proto-orthodoxy; the remainder, however, deserve our full attention. We know a little about Pantaenus from the writings of Clement, but we do not have any of his writings. Clement and Origen on the other hand have bequeathed us enough material for a lifetime of reading and decades of study. Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, like their contemporaneous teachers, spent their efforts tutoring students in what would have looked like an ancient philosophical school. Schools of this sort were not necessarily academic in the modern sense of the term. They could be as small as a teacher and a single student and could perish with the death of the teacher or otherwise survive under a successor. Indeed, it was the character of the teacher that attracted potential students. Teachers would become spiritual guides to their students, who would gather around their teacher for years on end. The schools of antiquity were fundamentally oriented to texts — they could be described as textual communities — and their teachers interacted with important texts in three ways: one, “text functions as teacher;” two, “text and teacher act in concert or together;” and three, “teacher as text.”[1] St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker’s Panegyric is full of high praise for Origen, Gregory’s teacher, and Gregory makes clear that for him, his teacher became his text.[2] Clement and Origen’s works themselves fit within the second category, though they write in a rather different style. Clement often structures his works topically and makes use of texts that serve his literary efforts. Origen employs a similar arrangement in some of his works, yet in others, especially his exegetical works, he arranges his teaching by the structure of the text under examination. Origen had himself been a grammatikos, that is, one who taught children in the second level of their schooling after they had learned the basics of reading. The grammatikos would treat a text in four stages: one, “criticism to determine what the ancient author had written;” two, “reading and recitation, which included memorizing the text for recitation;” three, “explanation of the text, which included the meaning of unusual words, grammatical forms, etymology, as well as the content or story of the text;” and four, “judgment, or the moral teaching of the text.”[3] Origen would soon make use of his rhetorical training and devote his efforts exclusively to the study of Christian texts when persecution broke out under Septimius Severus (from 193 to 211 A.D.). As Eusebius recounts in Book Six of his Ecclesiastical History, there was not a single teacher remaining to preach the word of God.[4] Two brothers, Plutarch and Heracles, we are told, sought out Origen to teach them about Christ, and they became his first two students.[5] Eusebius names nine of Origen’s students who soon after baptism went to their martyrdom: these were Plutarch, who was one of the first two to seek Origen out for instruction, Serenus, Heraclides, Hero, a second named Serenus, a woman named Herais, Basilides, a woman named Potamiaena, and her mother Marcella.[6] What, then, was the goal of the school of Origen? Heine summarizes this for us beautifully: “Origen’s school, like Clement’s before him, was not intended to form specialists in texts or ideas, whether secular or sacred, but to form a Christian person. The real subject was the virtues, practical wisdom, self-control, justice, and courage.”[7] In Origen’s school, Gregory Thaumaturgus says, students were incited to virtue more by his works than by his words.[8] His example caused his students to love the virtues. Gregory judged the ultimate goal of Origen’s school to be that a person should progress through all the virtues, and having been made like God with a pure mind, approach Him and remain in Him.[9] Clement and Origen were concerned with the formation not merely of learned people, but, more centrally, of spiritual servants of God. What are the implications of this short discussion on the “schools” of Alexandria for theological education in the Coptic Church today? First, the question on the hearts of many: must our theological schools be accredited? If we are honest with ourselves, the issue touches our deepest vulnerabilities as a Christian minority emerging into the daylight of freedom of religious expression. Surrendering to any process of accreditation necessarily forces us to put into words and in writing to what we claim we are committed and provides an opportunity for others to hold us accountable to our expressed cause. Accreditation is not a matter to be taken lightly or approached hastily, but is undoubtedly a necessary step if we as a Church are serious about our commitment to bringing the message of the Gospel to the ends of the earth.[10] How can we return to the former glory of Alexandrine Christian education in carrying out the important service of theological education in the Church today, particularly in the West? First, we must recognize that the primary function of theological schooling and religious education in the Church at all levels is to discipline our people in the Christian life, just as it was in the theological schools of second- and third-century Alexandria, and we must make use of the ancient Christian texts bequeathed to us in order to achieve this purpose, so as to abide by and deliver the very spirit and doctrine that so wonderfully characterized the Orthodox authors of those texts, whose descendants we are. Second, we must return to the Alexandrine text of the Holy Scriptures, which is carefully preserved in the Coptic textual witnesses. Translation of these works, or adoption of the English language versions of the Holy Bible most faithful to the Alexandrine text, is undoubtedly necessary across Coptic Churches in the West. Third, we must allow the faithful writers of antiquity to speak to us today, both by consulting accurate translations of the ancient sources and through the mouths of their modern readers. We must oblige our responsibility of academic honesty and have the courage to be accurate, precise, and exacting in our research efforts. Just as it is incorrect to say, in broad strokes and general terms, that the School of Alexandria taught this or that, since it has been shown that Origen and Clement conducted their own “schools,” so to speak, so too is it erroneous to assert in general terms that the Coptic Church teaches this or that, except in those instances where the ancient liturgical prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church reflect a certain teaching or the Church has publicly and consistently adopted a specific stance on any given matter. In the case of modern teachers and scholars, it is preferable to acknowledge that “Bishop X taught this,” or “Father Y taught that.” Every modern scholar in the field of Coptic Studies, in any of its areas, must bear the responsibility of academic honesty and measure himself or herself against the Alexandrine tradition that extends almost 2,000 years. Each of us as Coptic Orthodox Christians, and particularly those among us who are tasked with the responsibility of educating in the Church at any level, must recognize that to justify one’s knowledge and teaching of Christian faith and doctrine without recourse to the ancient writings, and especially, for our purposes, those that emerged in Alexandria, is precisely to preach ourselves and not authentic Orthodoxy. — [1] H. Gregory Snyder. Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 224-27. [2] See Gregory Thaumaturgus, Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen. [3] Ronald E. Heine. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. P. 61. [4] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History VI.3.1. [5] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History VI.3.2. [6] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History VI.4.1 — VI.5.1. [7] Ronald E. Heine. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. P. 64. [8] See Gregory Thaumaturgus, Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen, 9. [9] See Gregory Thaumaturgus, Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen, 12. [10] I will address accreditation further in the third entry of this series. — His Grace Bishop Suriel presently serves as a Professor at the Pope Shenouda III Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary in New Jersey, United States. We are honored to announce that Season Two of His Grace Bishop Suriel’s podcast, Coffee with Bishop Suriel, is also coming soon! Subscribe to Coffee with Bishop Suriel to receive the latest news. Cover Image: Andrei Mironov, Sermon on the Mount. 2022. Image Original. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

In an interview about his book “Hearing the Scriptures,”[1] Fr. Eugen J. Pentiuc describes liturgical experience as a dynamic and interactive event in which the interpretative imagination of hymnographers and liturgists collides with the intellect and senses of the hearer, who takes in the entire scene of prayer in the corporate setting of the Church. What Christian worshippers encounter through the hymns, lectionaries, and liturgical prayers of the Church is a synergistic expression of the Holy Scriptures through what Fr. Pentiuc describes as an entanglement of the Old and New Testaments. The depth of the meaning is compounded in both typology of the Old being fulfilled in the New, but also in a reverse typology where the New enlightens the spiritual reality of the Old.[2] While Fr. Pentiuc explores the Holy Week hymns of the Byzantine tradition, in this paper we will focus on the prevalence of Abrahamic typology and references in the Coptic Orthodox Christian rite and explore some aspects of its impact on the liturgical theology of the Coptic Orthodox tradition. This paper will be organized to cover the appearance of the patriarchs in the Coptic Synaxarium on 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ,[3] in which Abraham is referenced as a prophet. Next, some attention will be given to the minor references to Abraham during the Great Lent and the Nativity season of Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ.[4] Then, we will move on to the more notable Feast of Covenant Thursday with its renowned typology of the sacrifice of Isaac foreshadowing the Passion of Christ. Finally, we will reflect on the role that Abrahamic typology plays in the annual days of the Coptic rite in the Eucharistic Liturgy of St. Basil, in the petitions of the Church and, perhaps most importantly, in the prothesis rite of selecting the Eucharistic offering. Feast of the Patriarchs on 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ Many Old Testament figures are included in the Coptic Synaxarium, or the book of the “lives of the saints,” typically in remembrance of their service as prophets or in celebration of their righteous way of life. This includes the combined feast for the three patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ in the Coptic calendar (September 3 in the Gregorian calendar). For the divine liturgy celebrated on that day, there are several special features that denote the honor given to the patriarchs in general and to Abraham in particular. Among the prayers of this day are a Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ,[5] a Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ,[6] a hymn for the prophets (Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ Ⲁⲃⲉⲗ[7]) and a Concluding Canon, in addition to the daily readings, which themselves offer deep insights into the Church’s high esteem for the patriarch and prophet who was patiently awaiting the appearance of the Lord, just as he awaited the birth of Isaac. The theology of the Church is enacted and lived in the rites of the Church, and in this particular example the Church’s understanding and thought is fully explained by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Glaphyra on the Pentateuch: “Great indeed, then, is the marvel of that righteous man, and his love of God is beyond all praise. For…allowing no earthly thing to oppose his love for God, he offered up the spiritual sacrifice.”[8] Although not an exhaustive treatment of the rites for this commemoration day, several lines from the aforementioned hymns and Canon are worth mentioning. First, the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ for 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ celebrates the three patriarchs while also invoking the prayers of St. Mary the Theotokos.[9] “Through the prayers of the Theotokos and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,”[10] is chanted making an indirect connection between Abraham as the father of the nations in Christ and the Theotokos as the mother of the incarnate Lord. The hymn for the prophets, Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ Ⲁⲃⲉⲗ, also emphasizes the idea that Christ was already revealing Himself to the Old Testament prophets so that they may also rejoice in the foreknowledge of the salvation of the world. This line also combines the three patriarchs with Noah in exultation, “Righteous Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph judged Egypt; they bore witness to His coming.”[11] Lastly, the Concluding Canon venerates Abraham as the forefather of the Savior, saying: “All races and tribes…cannot speak of your dignity…for the pleasure of the Lord Jesus who appeared in your genealogy.”[12] These mentions of Abraham honor him as a prophet of the Passion of Christ and as an ancestor to the Incarnate Lord. The Lectionary (Ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ), or the book of daily liturgical readings, is a treasure trove containing the mind of the Church regarding Abraham’s high rank among the Old Testament prophets and his importance to our spiritual life today.[13] An overarching theme is the identification of the Lord as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,[14] as if to deflect the question of God’s identity to the patriarchs themselves. The Most High was worshipped by them, and we know Him by virtue of being their descendants. Both the Gospel of the Evening Raising of Incense and the Catholic Epistle excerpted from the Epistle of St. James[15] echo the theme of friendship with God. The Psalm of the Divine Liturgy signals the everlasting covenant with Abraham, reinforcing that what the Lord has promised, He will do, and it will not be undone. This is further evidenced in the Gospel of the Morning Raising of Incense, taken from the Gospel According to St. Luke, which describes the role that Abraham has in the heavenly kingdom with an account of his interaction with Lazarus and the rich man interceding to the patriarch for relief. The result of his friendship with God on earth is the eternal relationship with Him in heaven, participating in the work of the eternal kingdom by comforting the poor and meek. This one day in the liturgical calendar reveals the thought of the Church regarding the economy of salvation and the activity of the saints as friends and collaborators with the Lord of Hosts. As previously posited, the Church as the Ark of Salvation facilitates an overlapping of the spiritual realities of the Old Testament and New Testament, whose synthesis is the worship of all who are waiting for the building of the City of God.[16] Abraham waited and saw the hope of the Resurrection; so too his children wait, watch, and hope for the fulfillment of redemption in Christ. Mentions of Abraham during Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ and Great Lent Abraham accompanies us throughout the Coptic liturgical calendar with mentions during annual days and fasting seasons alike. It is worth noting that the lines about Abraham during Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ mirror the hymnology of the Sunday Θεοτοκία,[17] while the hymns for Great Lent mirror the annual Wednesday Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ and express our sharing in the virtues of obedience and generosity whole-heartedly lived by the patriarch. Of interest is that Abraham’s nephew Lot is also counted among the righteous men who were saved through prayer and fasting. In this section, the phraseology of those hymns will be explored. The theological focus of the Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ season is the anticipation of the Incarnation of the Lord, and as such the hymnology places great emphasis on the role of St. Mary the Theotokos and her willing participation in the salvation of the world through her miraculous pregnancy. As previously indicated, this participation in the economy of salvation alongside the Lord is a unique tenet of Orthodox Christianity. Pairing the Old Testament prophets with the Theotokos communicates that this activity began from the earliest encounters of mankind with God. For this reason, one of the seasonal doxologies for Ⲕⲟⲓⲁϩⲕ parallels the well-known verses among the Coptic faithful from the Sunday Psalmody, in the hymn Ϣⲁϣϥ ⲛ̀ⲥⲟⲡ:[18] “Hail to you, Mary: the grace of Abraham;” “Hail to you, Mary: the salvation of Saint Isaac;” and “Hail to you, Mary: the rejoicing of Jacob.”[19] The tune shifts for the Great Lent, as does the theological lesson taught through the hymnology. In comparing the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ, prayed Sunday through Tuesday, and the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ, prayed Wednesday through Saturday, familiar concepts are displayed, such as the offering of an acceptable sacrifice through fasting, the visitation of the Lord to the righteous, and the deliverance from tribulation. The Wednesday Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ prayed during annual days throughout the year reflects the same theological points with the addition of the virtues of compassion and mercy. Abraham’s Acceptable Sacrifice and Covenant Thursday As observed in the hymns for Great Lent, Abraham’s sacrifice of his beloved son Isaac is already being recalled in the Coptic congregations in the period leading up to Holy Week. However, the significance of Abraham’s actions will only be heightened as the Pascha unfolds. H.H. Pope Shenouda III described Holy Week in his book Thine is the Power and the Glory: “The Passion Week…is the most important period in the year and the richest spiritually. It is a week full of holy memories of the most crucial stage of salvation...The Church chose for this week certain readings from both the Old and the New Testaments, which reflect, the most passionate feelings that explain God's relation with Man.”[23] In the following paragraphs, Abraham’s participation in the “acceptable sacrifice” of the Lord Jesus Christ through His Passion will be examined. Prior to Holy Thursday, there is only one prophecy related to Abraham and Isaac found in the readings of the Coptic Church’s Holy Week Lectionary. In the Ninth Hour of Wednesday, one of the Old Testament readings is taken from the Book of Genesis (24:1-9), which tells of Abraham sending his servant to find a wife for Isaac. In this case, the search for Isaac’s bride foreshadows the Church as the bride of Christ.[24] The Church again confirms that the prophets both had foreknowledge of and participated in the salvation history of the world in the Exposition reading for that Hour. The Exposition reading states: “The mystery of Your incarnation You have concealed in our body, O Christ our God. For Abraham, the great patriarch, the father of all nations fathomed in great faith that God the Word shall be incarnate from his seed.”[25] These readings and their situation within the prayers of Holy Week achieve two purposes: first, the congregation is reminded that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is how He will redeem His bride, the Church, and second, they act as a preparation for the events of the next day when Abraham and Isaac will again be front and center alongside Christ in His Passion on Covenant Thursday. With the focus on the account of Abraham, Isaac, and the offering on Mt. Moriah, it may be easy to miss the second reading from the Book of Genesis during the Ninth Hour prayer of Holy Thursday, even though it gives an important theological frame to the events of the day. The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19) is read in tandem with Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:17-20), king of Salem, from whom he received an offering of bread and wine. St. Cyril, in the Glaphyra, gives a lengthy treatment of the presence of Melchizedek, also interpreting the offering as a type of the Eucharist instituted by Christ on Covenant Thursday. He writes, “Melchizedek took up the symbols of the priesthood that excels the law, offering Abraham both wine and bread when he blessed him. Likewise, we are not blessed in any other way except through Christ, the great and true priest.”[26] Thus, the faithful are readied to receive the Institution of the greatest sacrament of the Christian Church, the Eucharist. It appears paradoxical that the Lord should require that the Son of Promise, Isaac, be offered up, yet this is Abraham’s test, and God finds his sacrifice acceptable, as the Church reads in the Exposition of the Ninth Hour of Covenant Thursday.[27] It is Isaac who carries the wood, just as Christ carried the wood of the Cross by His own strength and will, and was also accepted by the Father, as the Coptic faithful chant in the hymn Ⲫⲁⲓ ⲉ̀ⲧⲁϥⲉ̀ⲛϥ[28] during the Sixth Hour of Good Friday: “This is He who offered Himself as an acceptable sacrifice on the Cross for the salvation of our race.”[29] None give light to this typology better than St. Cyril: “For the Word was in reality of the substance of God the Father, shining radiantly in His own temple, that which was supplied through the Virgin, and which was nailed to the tree. Although as God He was impassable and immortal, He took Himself away to suffering and death, and through His own body He offered up a pleasing aroma to God the Father. He Himself, therefore, is said to have been accepted by the Father, in accordance with what is written in the Psalms.”[30] The Psalms resolve this paradox of sacrificing the promised and cherished heir, as we read in Psalm 16:10, “For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” Isaac is restored to Abraham, and Christ trampled death by His Resurrection. Even as we anticipate and gradually approach the Crucifixion during the days of the Pascha Week, the Church is clear in her teaching that the end goal is not solely perseverance in the face of innocents’ suffering, but the rejoicing in the redemptive victory that dawns with the Resurrection Feast. Before the distribution of the Holy Body and Blood for the Divine Liturgy of Covenant Thursday, the Fraction prayer clearly lays out this typology, instructing the faithful to anticipate the Resurrection even on the day preceding the Crucifixion. It reads, “and Isaac returned alive, likewise Christ rose alive from the dead and appeared to His holy disciples. O God, who received the sacrifice of our father Abraham, receive this sacrifice from our hands in this hour.”[31] The Church lives out this unity which transcends temporal boundaries, bringing together the sacrifice of Abraham, the Crucifixion of the Lord, and the institution of the Eucharist, our prayer and sacrifice offered year by year, and the acceptance of all these separate moments by God the Father as one. Abraham in the Annual Days of the Coptic Rite The power of this spiritual reality is repeated during the annual days of the Coptic liturgical calendar, when the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is regularly prayed. Two references to Abraham can be observed audibly, while Abraham’s role in the prothesis rite of selecting the Eucharistic offering is acted out inaudibly by the celebrant. Attentive devotion should be given even to these minor mentions of Abraham in the Prayer for the Departed offered during the Evening Raising of Incense and also in the Commemoration of the Saints prayed during the Liturgy of the Faithful, as they bring into focus the presence of the Scriptures within the liturgical rites. As discussed in the section on 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ, the Gospel of the Morning Raising of Incense passage from the Gospel According to St. Luke on that day describes Lazarus as resting in Abraham’s arms.[32] In reference to the same account, we pray in the two aforementioned prayers, “Graciously, O Lord, repose all their souls in the bosom of our holy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[33] Sustain them in a green pasture, by the water of rest in the Paradise of joy, the place out of which grief sorrow and groaning have fled away, in the light of Your saints,”[34] reminding us that death is a departure to the resting place of the fathers and that there is spiritual activity even for those who wait there for the Kingdom. The only mention of Abraham in the Morning Raising of Incense is in the Prayer for the Oblations, reminding us to offer our gifts with righteousness. The prayer reads: “As You have received the offerings of the righteous Abel, the sacrifice of our father Abraham and the two mites of the widow, so also receive the thank-offerings of our servants.”[35] Again we see the overlap of both Old and New Testament offerings with our own in the present time, signifying the unity of the faithful across the ages. Abraham’s sacrifice also plays as important a role during the Divine Liturgies celebrated on annual days as it does on Covenant Thursday, however through a silent, symbolic action of the celebrant. Not only is it silent, but it is also passed on purely as oral tradition from priest to priest.[36] During the prothesis rite of the Coptic Church, the priest folds the Communion napkin to have a point at one end and hides it inside his sleeve to signify the knife that Abraham would have carried. Once the Eucharistic offering is selected, the napkin is taken out, unfolded, and used to wipe any excess flour from the offering in order to prepare it to be placed in the paten. The remainder of the loaves are also blessed by the priest with the prayer, “A sacrifice of glory, a sacrifice of praise, a sacrifice of Abraham, a sacrifice of Isaac, a sacrifice of Jacob, a sacrifice of Melchizedek.”[37] The silence of this symbolic act instructs us in the layers of mystery involved in the sacrament. Abraham went to Mt. Moriah keeping the details of the sacrifice to himself; the Lord Christ also went to the Cross in silence. Similarly, when the priest selects the offering bread, he is silent as the congregation chants “Lord, have mercy,” using the appropriate Ⲁϫⲡⲓⲁ prayers (Prayers of the Hours) as a segue into the Divine Liturgy itself while petitioning God to be present among the faithful. We can imagine that Abraham was earnestly praying for God’s presence and intervention in the sacrifice of Isaac, again circling back to the overlapping spiritual parallels of the Old and New Testaments in the life of the Church. Conclusion The climax of Abraham’s role in the rites of the Coptic Church is undoubtedly recognized as Covenant Thursday, when his beloved son Isaac is offered to God in tandem with Christ’s institution of the Eucharist and His preparation to complete the journey to the Cross. Nonetheless, Abraham remains present in the liturgical prayers throughout the year, as we have explored through both the seasonal hymns and the annual prayers. The patriarch is elevated in the eyes of the faithful for his righteous life before the Lord, leading him into a deep friendship with the Almighty.[38] The result of that intimate trust was that Abraham glimpsed through prophetic insight the Passion and Resurrection of the Only-Begotten Son when he received his own son back from the dead, as it were.[39] The sacramental mystery connecting the Old and New Testaments continually points us to Abraham for his willingness and determination to follow the Lord, entreating and energizing today’s faithful to continue in the ways of their father. In imitation of Abraham, the Coptic faithful eagerly rise and travel to the church with their acceptable sacrifice as a demonstration of their inheritance and root of their faith. As St. Cyril writes, “and so God the Father would in due course show forth Abraham to be the root and origin of many thousands of Gentiles, when Emmanuel died for the world.”[40] — [1] Pentiuc, Eugen. “Hearing the Scriptures: A Conversation with Fr. Eugen Pentiuc.” YouTube. Last modified November 9, 2022. [2] See Augustine of Hippo, Questions on the Heptateuch, 2.73. [3] “Mesra,” the twelfth month of the Coptic liturgical calendar, which typically begins in August in the Gregorian calendar. [4] “Kiahk,” the fourth month of the Coptic liturgical calendar, which typically begins in December in the Gregorian calendar. [5] A Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ (Psali) is a praise or hymn, and Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ (Wados) refers to the musical meter in which the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ is chanted, typically one consisting of seven, eight, or even nine beats per measure, and is associated with particular days of the week – specifically, Wednesday through Saturday. Thus, the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ for this commemoration is chanted when it falls on these days of the week. [6] When used in relation to the hymns and liturgical prayers of the Coptic Church, Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ (Adam), like Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ, refers to the musical meter in which the hymn is chanted, typically consists of four, five, or six beats per measure, and is associated with particular days of the week – specifically, Sunday through Tuesday. Thus, the Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ for this commemoration is chanted when it falls on these days of the week. [7] “Adam Abel” [8] Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, trans. Nicholas P. Lunn, vol. 1 Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018, pg 159. [9] “Mother of God” [10] Ⲯⲁⲗⲓ Ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ for 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ, 2. See also H.G. Bishop Mettaous, HG Bishop Samuel, Gerges Sarkis, Murad Morcos, ed. الابصاليات السنوية الجزء الثاني. Beni Suef, Egypt: Victor Kirollos Press, 1995, pg 289. [11] “Special Hymn - Any Prophet: Ⲁⲇⲁⲙ Ⲁⲃⲉⲗ Ⲙⲁⲑⲟⲩⲥⲁⲗⲁ: لحن خاص,” Accessed November 21, 2023. [12] H.G. Bishop Samuel, ed. ترتيب البيعة الجزء الثالث (الصوم الكبير-الخمسين - من برمهات إلى النسى) Shebeen al Kanater, Egypt: Al-Neam Publishing, 2000, pg. 206-207. [13] There are nine Scriptural readings for every day in the Coptic calendar, including a Psalm and Gospel for the Evening Raising of Incense, a Psalm and Gospel for Morning Raising of Incense, and readings from the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and the Acts as well as a Psalm and Gospel for the Divine Liturgy itself. On 28 Ⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲏ, the readings are as follows: Evening Raising of Incense – Psalm 46:6-8, John 15:7-16; Morning Raising of Incense – Psalm 104:2, Luke 16:19-31; Divine Liturgy – Hebrews 11:1-10, James 2:14-23, Acts 7:20-34, Psalm 104:4-5, Mark 12:18-27 (NKJV). [14] See readings from Acts and the Gospel of the Divine Liturgy. [15] See also Isaiah 41:8 (NKJV). [16] See Augustine, City of God. [17] “Theotokia,” a theologically rich praise for the Theotokos and the Incarnation of our Savior, of which one is found for every day of the week in the Psalmody of the Coptic Church. [18] “Shashf Ensob,” which begins: “Seven times every day, I will praise Your name…” [19] Ϣⲁϣϥ ⲛ̀ⲥⲟⲡ, 10a; 10c; 11a; See also Fr. Matthias Farid Wahba, ed., The Holy Psalmody Encino, CA: Keemy Brothers, 2004, pg. 136. [20] Wahba, pg. 679-680. [21] Ibid, pg. 671. [22] Ibid, pg. 201-202. [23] H.H. Pope Shenouda III, Thine is the Power and the Glory, Last modified March 13, 1998, pg. 7. [24] Cyril of Alexandria, pg. 164 [25] Fr. Abraham Azmy, ed., Book of the Holy Pascha: From the Last Friday of Great Lent to Resurrection Feast Liturgy Hamden, CT: Virgin Mary and Archangel Michael Coptic Orthodox Church, 2005., pg. 261. [26] Cyril of Alexandria, pg. 126; See Hebrews 7. [27] Azmy, pg. 397. [28] “Fai Etafenf” (GB). [29] “Fai Etaf-Enf: Ⲫⲁⲓ  ⲉ̀ⲧⲁϥⲉ̀ⲛϥ ⲉ̀ⲡϣⲱⲓ: فاي إتاف إنف,” March 7, 2007, Accessed December 10, 2023. [30] Cyril of Alexandria, pg 156. [31] “Covenant Thursday: Ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲇⲉ ϧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲉ̀ϩⲟⲟⲩ: خميس العهد,” April 5, 2012, Accessed December 10, 2023. [32] See Luke 16:19-31 (NKJV). [33] Evidence for the use of this phrase can be found in the rubrics of Pope Gabriel V from the 15th century. For more on the commemoration prayers see Mikhail, Ramez. The Presentation of the Lamb Ebook PDF: The Prothesis and Preparatory Rites of the Coptic Liturgy. Studies in Eastern Christian Liturgies, V.2. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2020, pg. 233-234. [34] Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, The Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil Canadensis, CA: St. John the Beloved Publishing House, 1993, pg. 31 and pg. 513. [35] Ibid, pg. 53. [36] Silas Andrew, “Liturgy of St. Basil,” Bible Study (lecture presented at the College Youth Bible Study, Gainesville, FL: St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church, 2023). [37] Mikhail, pg. 219. Fr. Arsenius Mikhail details in his work that these practices developed over time with an increasing reverence and symbolism, but are not found in existing manuscripts. [38] See James 2:21-23; 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8. [39] See John 8:56; Hebrews 11:17-19. [40] Cyril of Alexandria, pg. 159. — Jessica Ryder-Khalil serves at St. Mary Magdalene Coptic Orthodox Church in Gainesville, FL. Before becoming a homemaker for her beloved husband and four children, her professional background was in teaching English as a Second Language. She is currently pursuing a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree at St. Athanasius & St. Cyril Theological School (ACTS). This paper is an adaptation of course work submitted for "Introduction to the Old Testament," offered by Fr. Eugen Pentiuc in Fall 2023 at St. Athanasius & St. Cyril Theological School. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.

The deposit of Faith, as handed down to the Church from Christ through the Apostles, was safeguarded, expounded, and clearly delineated in the Ecumenical Councils such that their influence touches every aspect of Orthodox Christianity. These Councils were entrusted to elucidate the fundamental doctrines of the Church, including, but not limited to, Trinitarian theology, Christology, Mariology, Soteriology, and Ecclesiology, while also administering and regulating a rapidly-growing Christian community. Without the perceptive and transformative decrees that came out of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church would not be as we know her to be today. As members continued to be added to the Church, to the extent that the Church became universal, an official definition of her Faith and a more formal arrangement of her service became necessary. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware summarizes the role of the Ecumenical Councils in the growing Church: “[They] clarified and articulated the visible organization of the Church, crystallizing the position of the five great sees or Patriarchates…The councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.”[1] As is evident in the reception of the decrees, Creed of Faith, canons, and liturgical, moral, and behavioral laws pronounced and decreed by the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, this Council, and all Ecumenical Councils that came after it, became, after the Scriptures, the ruling authority regarding the Faith and life of the Church. Shortly after the turn of the fourth century, Arianism grew rampant, plaguing and dividing the Church more than any heresy that preceded it. As a result of this division among the Christians, the imperial authorities saw it necessary to convene the first Ecumenical Council to rectify the issue. Representatives were chosen from among the leaders of the Churches, and in May of 325 A.D. they convened at Nicaea to address Arianism, which purported that the Incarnate Logos “is not eternal, nor coeternal with the Father, nor uncreated like the Father,” but is rather a perfect creation.[2] By the conclusion of this Council, those in attendance, mainly Bishops and those of the various clerical orders, had identified, formulated, and deemed acceptable and Orthodox certain terminology based upon the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition which they had received, in order to clarify the Orthodox doctrine of the All-Holy Trinity, one in essence. The formulated Creed, which would come to be known as the Nicene Creed, introduced to Christological language the term Homoousios, meaning “of one [and the same] substance” with the Father, and confirmed the Church’s faith that Christ is “True God of True God,” affirming the divinity of the Lord.[3] The inclusion of the term Homoousios into the Nicene Creed was essential, as a response to the efforts of Eusebius of Caesarea, who had composed a creed of faith completely devoid of this doctrine, or at the very least the word used for consubstantiality.[4] In order to clarify the sound Orthodox teaching as they had received it, this Council felt it necessary to not only include the term Homoousios, but also to expound upon its interpretation, since it was not explicitly from the divinely-inspired Scriptures but was produced “in man’s reason.”[5] It became the intent and practice of the Church’s leaders, most notably Athanasius of Alexandria, to use the terminology developed at Nicaea, and especially its statement of Faith, to remain faithful to the Scriptural teaching and not deviate from the sound understanding of the Person of Christ.[6] The statement of Faith agreed upon at Nicaea is until today recited by the Faithful in every Orthodox liturgical prayer, albeit as modified by the Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. As such, it is evident that the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea became the precedent and foundation upon which the subsequent Ecumenical Councils would build their efforts to preserve and convey proper Orthodox dogma.[7] Besides the Creed of Faith that was agreed upon, anathemas were instituted by the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. An aim of the Council was to affirm that those who fall away from the Church’s doctrine were to be set apart from the Church and not to commune with the Faithful, on the basis that they do not worship the same God. The anathemas decided at Nicaea were: “And those who say that 'there was once when he was not' and 'before being begotten he did not exist,' and that 'he came into existence from nothing' or who affirm that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or mutable or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”[8] Here, the Council’s anathemas first deal with those who asserted that Christ was not eternal and was therefore successive to the Father as a mutable creation (i.e., a creation subject to change). The Council then reiterated the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the incarnate Logos and clarified that if any were to identify with or believe a contrary teaching, the Church, in her authority, condemned them, for the sake of preserving the Orthodox Faith and the spiritual and dogmatic wellbeing of her members. The Ecumenical Councils not only dealt with theology and dogma, but also touched on ritual practice and areas of practical life, as evidenced by the canons issued by them. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea decreed twenty canons dealing with various matters of the Church’s life, for the sake of ritual order and the edification of the Church’s members. The canons issued at Nicaea remain authoritative until today. For example, even until today, a bishop must be ordained by no less than three other bishops, although the preference and most common practice is to have many bishops present. This practice corresponds to the fourth canon established at Nicaea and is a prime example of the Church issuing regulations for the proper ordination of bishops.[9] The fifth Nicene canon required that universal consistency be maintained in the Church with regard to the reception of those who were excommunicated by other bishops: pre-excommunication investigations and examinations were conducted twice a year with the gathering of a “synod.” Other canons established by this council addressed many other canonical functions, such as baptism, ordination, ecclesiastical authority, and traveling/relocated clergy. Along with these, there were canons that fulfilled a moral or ethical function, such as canon seventeen, against usury, which stated that any member of the clergy who practices usury — a rampant issue at the time — shall be deposed.[10] In the second canon, an ecclesiastical and moral issue is addressed, as ordaining a newly-baptized convert out of necessity due to a lack of clergy is denounced: it is ecclesiastical in that there is care for the Church to not cause any to stumble if the ordained convert were to fall into sin, and it is moral in its care for the one called to ordination, “lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil.”[11] The Council saw fit to enact such preventative measures in keeping the Church ordered, secure and well-balanced. The effects of the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea pervaded throughout history to underpin the authority of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, and thereby the life of the Church and her members. The Councils thereafter, having the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea as their foundation, became the ruling authority in the Church for expounding and clarifying proper Orthodox theology and terminology: for instance, the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, which convened in 431 A.D. and confirmed as most proper for use in reference to the Virgin Mary the term Θεοτόκος in lieu of Nestorius’ preferred term Χριστοτόκος[12], and the Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 A.D., at which the divinity and equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son was confirmed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was completed, were founded upon the decrees established and Faith confirmed at Nicaea.[13] The Ecumenical Councils collectively and authoritatively sought to preserve the Orthodox Faith against doctrinal and behavioral deviations by and among certain members of the Flock, and the canons and decisions that resulted from these Councils define and safeguard the Faith of the Church until today. The Orthodox Churches continue to adhere to the Faith defended at the aforementioned Ecumenical Councils and the decisions of these Councils, for the sake of faithfully delivering the deposit of Faith, as was received from Christ, through the Apostles, and in the Church, to past, present, and future generations of Orthodox Christians. — [1] Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity, 19. [2] Letter of Arius to Alexander of Alexandria [3] Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 134. [4] Behr, The Nicene Faith, 152. [5] Danielou and Marrou, The First Six Hundred Years, 1:252. [6] Behr, The Nicene Faith, 152. [7] Danielou and Marrou, The First Six Hundred Years, 1:252-253. [8] Behr, The Nicene Faith, 155. [9] Schaff, A Select of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Ser. 2, 14, 69–70. [10] Ibid., 114 [11] 1st Timothy 3:6 [12] Schaff, A Select of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Ser. 2, 14, 419 [13] D’Ambrosio, When the Church Was Young, 200–201. — Mr. Kyrillos Tadros is a seminarian presently completing his studies at the Antiochian House of Studies and a Reader in the Coptic Orthodox Church serving in New Jersey. His interests and research encompass scriptural exegesis, liturgics, liturgical vestments, and patristics. He can be reached at kjtadros9@gmail.com. This article is an adaptation of a paper submitted by Mr. Tadros for “Church History I: The Christian Church from Its Foundation through the Seventh Century,” offered by Fr. Michel Najim in Fall 2020 at AHOS. DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.