Social justice has been always one of the most significant topics of the Word of God, conveying a timeless message to a world harmed from sin and suffering from injustice. More precisely The Old Testament prophets were extraordinary figures having a tremendous impact to their contemporaries [1] and this is the reason why Yahweh used them to convey His message about social justice [2] in Israel [3] and definitely to the modern man as well. They were indeed genuine and passionate protectors of the disadvantaged and the socially weak people. They were eminently the preachers of the genuine conversion and the consequent turning back towards God, emphasizing that the act of suppressing the weak, blocks the communication with God and reversely being suppressed implies the ultimate need of resorting to God, invoking for His support.[4] The prophets thus becoming supporters of the weak give the right of speaking about ‘Prophetic Humanism’ and to designate them as multicomponent personalities.[5]
That observation will be the outset for this article to examine what the book of prophet Jeremiah at 7. 1-15 has to present regarding this issue; there he makes an outstanding appeal to his contemporaries, to change their behavior, which is characterized by anesthesia and cruelty towards the needs of the socially weak groups, based on the perversion of the moral Law of Yahweh. This article is going to examine Jeremiah’s appeal by giving a particular emphasis to the Church Fathers of the eastern Christian theology, which are the most important expressers of Social Theology [6] by exploring and studying their comments about this text, in relation to their general convictions and teachings about social justice.
The Warning
The whole text belongs to the “prose sermons” of Jeremiah;[7] it is one of the most significant discourses of the prophet, called the “Temple Sermon” and it was delivered around 609-608 BC during a great event where people were coming to worship [8] and the Temple was crowded. Even though not knowing the circumstances surrounding the delivery of this sermon [9] it is a story of a prophet attacking the Temple and prophesying judgment, which somehow recurs in chapter twenty-six and later in the Gospels [10] where Jesus cleanses the Temple in Jerusalem.[11] Definitely the sermon has been set in a frame of a direct speech from God [12] and it is against the hypocrites of his day, which were replete with a religious appearance while empty of an ethical life.[13]
The proclamation “Lord (Yahweh) of hosts” (v. 3) is one of the most significant and majestic among all the titles attributed to God.[14] The author by using this title is trying to demonstrate the significance and importance of the warning. God is the King and General of Israel and the One that saved them in countless unpleasant situations with aspiring enemies of the nation. Any possibility of Lord’s quitting from this position and the consequent protection would expose the nation to any potential upcoming danger. The greatest warning of God is the rectification of the ways of the people. These ways are nothing more than the “inward inclinations, settled habits, their general course of life, and ‘doings’ to the outward fruits or separate deeds that make up these customary habits.”[15] The warning directly coming from the Lord and verbally expressed from the prophet is more or less the last attempt that God does in order to restore Judah in the ethical and moral position that Yahweh’s worshipers should always be.
The Temple Theology
The unspiritual “false slogan” reflected in the cultic “magical formula”[16] about the “Temple theology”,[17] reinforced by a fulsome threefold repetition (v. 4) is indicative of people’s spiritual poverty; instead of putting their trust in God, their focus was on an inanimate object.[18] It was like a “superstitious attachment”, expressing the pride of the worshipers about the greatness of their religious institution, where the Temple served as a lucky charm, protecting the land and its residents. This phenomenon is apparent in all religious history where many believers put their trust in “external church connections” and they are complacent with “outward religious activities” rather than an inward conversion of the character. However any kind of ritual and ceremony, facilities and numbers, is indeed a very poor substitute for a genuine heart dedication, atonement of sins and cordial piety.[19] John Chrysostom [20] recognizing this fallacious attitude, he noticed that the temple was not able to sanctify those who gathered on it, but reversely they should make it holy. This is why the temple did not benefit them at all, although that the ark and cherubim was in it; and because of people’s behavior, God’s aversion has reached the utmost.[21] Therefore the temple should obtain its status by the “quality of the worshipers who gather there”.[22]
Actually, “Land, temple, and people (v. 7), function as a vital triangle and the short of people the Judeans should be, is the focus with which the oracle begins.” The occupation of the land was directly connected to a good lifestyle, which was related and conditioned to the temple life; however the temple worship was totally unattached to a lifestyle fitted to God’s people. This lifestyle was the “condition of living in the land and the criterion of worshiping in the temple”. Once this element was declined, the land and temple privileges were invalidated and the triangle was about to collapse.[23] The only remedy for the judgments is repentance and an honest life of integrity towards fellow men.[24]
The idea that the Temple is the place where God “dwells” and where His glory is manifested is indicative of a place, which is holy. If the people treat it as a hideout for criminals and transgressors who try to escape justice, then this holiness collapses and the Sanctuary becomes a “den of robbers” (v. 11); therefore it is desecrated and will be suitable only for destruction.[25] Because of this behavior, John Chrysostom again identified the temple back in the days of Jeremiah as a place where God was not worshiped but it was a dwelling place of daemons where idolatry prevailed.[26] In order to emphasize the magnitude of violation, when he copies verse eleven, he writes that “your house became a den of hyenas,”[27] adding that it is not a den of any beast but of an unclean beast.[28] Also Cyril of Alexandria [29] is commenting on the same verse that, “the crimes of others are becoming for our great benefit, and those which failed morally, to these we become better if certainly, we renounce those acts. Because the wise can reasonably be safer if, they want to live legitimately; but if they do not have that zeal, they will be destroyed as the wicked”.[30]
“Religion is the image and likeness of society”.[31] And this sermon is addressing the “root of Judah’s problem in its religious attitude”,[32] which is a vivid “illustration of mindless worship”,[33] a false confidence upon the Temple (v.10) and the externals of their religion.[34] Israelites forgot one of the most important affirmations of their heritage, which is that “worship unaccompanied by deeds is empty” [35] defiling the Temple by their inadmissible behavior.
People’s Attitude
“All the Bible, from the history of Cain and Abel, is characterized by the love and preference which God shows to the weak and those who have suffered mistreatment in human history.” For God there are not superior and inferior people; nor it is recognized any other discrimination or social differences. Everyone has the same rights.[36] However, people took advantage of those having not a social network to support them,[37] so the prophet is making an appeal for behavioral change in terms of social justice (vv. 5, 6).[38]
Actually God’s righteousness, “covers the idea of a righteous act on behalf of the oppressed” and underprivileged members of society. This kind of righteousness does not demand just strict justice but is indicative of His salvation and rescue. And suchlike his people should act in the same righteous way, on behalf of the orphan, the widow and the stranger.[39] Because true and genuine religion enters into every aspect of life and is demonstrated by the effects it produces as far as concerns to the social relationships.[40]
There are countless Bible and Patristic references that urge the believer not to be limited to an “inexpensive piety” or verbal declarations about love, but to be exerted to practical and immediate love.[41] Patristic literature is defining love as the approach to another person; it cannot be accomplished by beings, which are closed in their selves. “If I love I do not cease to be myself, but I ‘immigrate’ towards someone who is – not me.”[42] However it is an afflictive reality that very often the religious experience is downgraded in an innocuous moralistic system of individualistic and self-complacent decency.[43] Reversing this idea, the Greek Fathers supported that there is not such thing as the so- called ‘private ownership’; everything that humans own, has been distributed by God as objects to be under the managment of wise stewards. Being more specific, John Chrysostom said that the possessors who are not engaged in the pious work of charity by refusing to offer charity to the needy, are committing a form of usurpation of common goods and confiscation of God’s possessions; they nullify the only true divine ownership and violate the principles of ‘distributive justice’.[44] He was asking rhetorically: “is there a worse thing than one to behave with unbridled inhumanity, even wearing the facies of charity and reaching out his hand to push to the cliff someone who needs help?”[45] Chrysostom pointed to the people’s indifference and injustice in a very caustic way by exclaiming that it was “cowardice not to defend the aggrieved”; and he took it further by considering as connivers those who were keeping silent, watching the injustice committed against other people. For this reason he invited the believers to have courage, to fight for their fellow men and to prevent the prevalence of injustice and exploitation in society.[46]
Basil the Great, [47] following the same track with Chrysostom, proclaimed that the human nature is consolidated and that everyone is human. The basic needs are common to all and common is poverty as well. He advised that a believer should offer anything he can equally to his brother and to the foreigner whom should consider his brother as well. He wrote that God wants to support those in need, and He does not make distinctions among people, because “all are brothers and children of one Father”.[48] He added that it is good for someone to say nice words, however it is better to offer his money to those in need. The comon use of the goods is the primary an existential practice while it still recalls the divine bounty to mankind.[49] According to Basil, the human beings are social beings creating intimate relationships; therefore there is a requisiteness to willingly provide for the rehabilitation of those in need.[50] He was urging the monasteries and churches to care for the sick and the poor, and to work directly for the benefit of the whole society.[51] The culmination of this effort was to establish the known Basileias, one charity city, while he urged the bishops of his jurisdiction, to establish similar institutions.[52] In a very similar way that Jeremiah was describing the problematic pseudo religious life of Israel, Basil was writing: “I know many who fast, pray, inure and generally apply willingly every religious habit as long as it costs them nothing, and do not have a dime for those in need. What benefits the remainder of their virtue? They do not fit to the Kingdom of God”,[53] giving thus an eschatological warning to every superficial act of worship.
Gregory of Nazianzus [54] was proclaiming, that people who were too pious in reasoning and not in making deeds [55] such as charity, their soul remains fruitless. Without helping their fellow men everything is impure and in vain. This is what makes humans able to be assimilated to God, as to feel mercy and compassion. So when they do not have it, they are deprived of everything.[56] He adds that they should consider themselves as a foreigner and they should honor the foreigners [57] because the rule of every spiritual axiom is one to neglect his own interests for the interests of others.[58] Evagrius Ponticus [59] wrote that the stranger and the poor are the eye salve of God; whoever receives them will quickly regain his sight. And he added that it is good to be a benefactor to everyone and even more to those who do not have the essential for living.[60] John the Merciful [61] declared, “If we are equal before Christ, let us become equal with each other.”[62] He was calling the poor and beggars as his principals and assistants because, as he was asserting, they were the only ones who could really help believers to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.[63] By this statement, John like Basil was providing an eschatological dimension to the issue of social justice; those who violate or neglect it simply cannot be saved. If people fail to approach their fellow men in a humanistic way, which to a great extend is expressing the core of God’s character and the way that He created humans, namely according to His image and likeness, then what really can God do about them? How can He save people that don’t want to change?
Gregory Palamas [64] gives a wider dimension to the issue of social justice. He says that people steal, are greedy and unfair, because appropriate conditions exist in society that favors this situation. If these conditions change, then neither will they steal, nor can do injustice even if they have such an intention.[65] It is very possible that God in this case wants to change these social conditions of Judah’s society since it is already corrupted and nourishes such behaviors occurred in the people. “Where there are unjust social, political, economic and cultural relations, there is rejection of the gift of peace or even worse, rejection of the Lord Himself”. Someone is expressing his love for God through his love for his neighbor. To empathize, to be suffering with the oppressed, sharing their destiny, these all imply that he knows God.[66] And Jeremiah is not simply content with a mere proclamation of the truth or with a declaration of ‘war’ on those who exploit the socially weak. He aditionally recommends to his listeners to amend their ways, namely to undertake the support of aggrieved and unprotected human beings [67] changing thus the conditions and the paradigm of the society and to form a new one according to the model that God envisioned, based on His ethical principles. The Church Fathers, supported this idea and by their writings, teaching or personal example were trying to reinforce a religius practice of comunal benevolence and philanthropy.
Deviation from the Law
However, what is the real reason that drives man to exploit and do injustice to his fellow men? These religious and moral offences were directed against “the heart of God’s covenant law as expressed in the Ten Commandments” (v. 9).[68] The basic cause for the inequality and injustice in the world is people’s alienation from God.[69] The perversion and transgression of God’s law is the more explicit deviation from a genuine relation with Him, which consequently is reflected to the social relationships. In the Decalogue there are two sets of commandments, the first that determines people’s obligations to God and the second that determines people’s obligations towards one another. And people’s corruption was indicative of failing to hold these two sets of values side by side. Because they neglected the first set by sharing their allegiance with other gods, they consequently deviated and abandoned the second one, with the inevitable following of injustice, oppression and judicial killings.[70]
John Chrysostom knowing this, in an effort to warn his audience claimed, “Τhe lords of the lords are the laws”.[71] It is important to recognize that the Commandments by definition are formed to protect from every injustice and at their core have a very humanistic orientation; they regulate the communal life in such a manner that human beings can retain their place and rights within the society.[72] Keeping the commandments is not a dry, pietistic religious act; it is part of a “relational dynamic, a reciprocity of faithfulness” which occurs simultaneously by both parts of the covenant. Consequently, people can reckon in the preservation of this covenantal relationship with God, on the basis of their obedience and faithfulness, since Lord is always faithful towards them.[73] Indeed the core of the covenantal relationship between the Lord and Israel is that the people should model the behavior of God towards them, by the behaviour that occurs towards one another. Unlike the Near East gods, which were the source of ethical obligations but they were excepted from them, there was a shared “moral agenda” between Yahweh and humans. Like every human being, God is bound by moral laws.[74] Gregory of Nazianzus commenting verse nine, asserted that social inequalities were not from the beginning God’s will. God created humans as free beings however after the fall, the original unity and equality among people was shattered. The unjust people with the help of the political law, which they used to oppress the powerless people, were imposed on the weakest and because of that, people were divided into rich and poor, free and slaves, and in many other categories. The people of God however are required to aspire and be directed to the original unity and not the subsequent division.[75] Gregory concluded that the law that a real religious person should accept and follow is not the law of the powerful and strong but the Creator’s law.[76]
Therefore the great deception of Israel was lying in this notion: Her worshipers, like people from all history and religions, used to have the false conviction that the Temple’s presence would guarantee -as a mechanical function- all the “religious benefits”, welfare and protection, regardless the moral status of the inhabitants of the land. However only a morally conditioned relationship with God could ensure such convictions, and people, which were guilty of theft, murder, adultery, false testimony and idolatry could not enter in such covenantal relationship.[77] To a great extend the Decalogue describes the statements that the Bible affirms, about what the life on this earth involves and what should happen behaviorally in a world created by God as a fit place for humans to dwell.[78] Where there is justice and law, there is knowledge of God’s presence; when these are absent and missing and the Commandments are neglected, God is absent too,[79] and social injustice and catastrophe are ensuing. Because of that, the prophet indicated that the prerequisite of avoiding the just punishment coming from God is the true returning to Him through keeping his commands and exerting justice toward all.
The record of prophet Jeremiah about the people of Judah could be defined as Cognitive Dissonance. This phenomenon occurs when there is a discrepancy between what individuals believe and what they do. If these two are mutually inconsistent then people feel dysphoria with their attitude and they have a need to change one of the two -beliefs or behaviour- in order to redeem the lack of consistency and to limit the felt discomfort. Paradoxically, people in an attempt to reduce this unpleasant arousal, they often adjust their thinking in order to justify to themselves their actions.[80] This is exactly what happened with the Israelites. Their everyday practice was coming to an apparent contradiction with the core of their religious covenantal system with Yahweh. By breaking the eternal law of God, they were becoming more and more aware of the inconsistency between their beliefs and their lifestyle. The emerged sentiment was discomfort and anxiety and people had to fight inwardly with this unpleasant feeling.
The solution they unconsciously started applying was to change their belief system instead of changing their everyday actions. Using the theological garment of the lying profitless and empty words of the false prophets (v. 8), which guided people to the external, superficial aspects of religious service, they turned their faith from an inward experience and a living relation with their Creator to a dead letter of formal bigotry, [81] which would be in perfect harmony with their villainous lifestyle. Because of the deviation from God’s moral principles expressed in the Decalogue, “the latter things became worse with them than the beginning”,[82] with the consequent verdict of God against them to be at hand.
The Object Lesson
The announcement of the judgment against Ephraim (v.15) was not a matter of fortuity. Ephraim was the larger and more powerful tribe in the north; therefore it is used as a determinant term for all the northern tribes, namely the whole kingdom.[83] The idea of how corrupted was the people of Ephraim is expressed by Eusebius of Caesarea [84] in a very vivid way. He commented that Jeremiah did very well by not naming all the people with the characterization ‘Israel’ or ‘Judah’ because he was not intended to defame noble names as such.[85]
This destruction was inevitable and Jerusalem would become according to Jeremiah’s prophesy like Shiloh (v. 12), a familiar gaunt ruin in the roadside near the city.[86] This is the “ the unmasking of the false consciousness” of people: If God could permit the destruction of His temple once nothing would prevent Him of doing it again.[87] And the prophet challenged the people with the kind of reasoning that would definitely work with them: their historical experience.[88] Shiloh was a town of Ephraim and the capital of Joshua, from where he distributed the Israelites to the Promised Land and where primarily he erected the Tabernacle. In the Hebrew history, Shiloh remains an amazing example of the divine wrath.[89] It was the home of the ark for approximately three hundred years. However Israel’s idolatry was the cause that the Philistines captured the ark and destroyed the town.[90] That was a great object lesson from Jeremiah to those who believed that the ark in Jerusalem was a guaranty for the protection of the city and its Temple. As in the old days “God forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh”[91], in the same way the story could be repeated once more; Shiloh’s fate was an indication that the safety of the people and the city was not merely depended upon an external superstitious ritualistic worship.[92] “Shiloh never again became a sanctuary for the Israelites” which is declarative that God has no interest about any religious structure but rather His worshipers to adhere to His expectations.[93]
Cyril of Alexandria concluded that about Jerusalem and what will happen to her because of the divine wrath, is useful one to narrate as an object lesson. It has to be clear that the God of all people, who governs everything, exists as the only concept of justice. He does not only cares, honors, and accepts those, which become intimate to Him and are trained with His law; but He is testing everyone and He distributes the goods only to those who have developed virtuous and moral habits, [94] which are applied towards these members of the society who are in need.
Conclusion
Prophet Jeremiah, fulfilling his role as a prophet and speaking on behalf of Yahweh, he is making an outstanding appeal to the people of Judah in order to amend their ways with an orientation to justice towards the weaker social groups. He intensely gives a warning expecting them to change; he discounts the false confidence they have on the external rituals of their religion and more precisely to the Temple; he is caustic to their inadmissible behavior to the destitute and outcasts; he discloses the cause of this behavior which is their withdrawal from God’s Law and he is giving them an object lesson by recalling their collective historical experience of Shiloh’s’ fate. On that context, the writings of the Eastern Church Fathers are definitely supportive to the appeal, which occurs in the book of Jeremiah but also they are contributing immensely in the understanding of the timeless value, of the need for social justice. The purpose of their teaching and of their social intervention is the building of a better society than the one in which they live, a society of equality, justice and love, redeemed from injustice and exploitation.[95]
The raised question from Jeremiah’s text and Patristic literature is what kind of religion will have the worshipers in Judah and the believers of the eons to come; if it is a religion, which promotes human development and unfolds the distinct human capabilities or if it is a religion that paralyzes any possibility of personal growth.[96] The outcome of Jeremiah’s text is that a genuine and effective religion is not simply a set of doctrines and beliefs but it is rooted in the deeper essence of the character of its believers. Τhe social structure, the structure of character and the religious structure are inseparable one from the other and the religious system which does not fulfill its social character, and it is in conflict with the practice of social life, then it is nothing more than mere an ideology [97] it has no deep roots and very soon is going to be vanished.
[1] John F. A. Sawyer, Prophecy and the Biblical Prophets, Revised edition (Oxford England ; New York: OUP Oxford, 1993), p. 11.
[2] Hebrew: מִשְׁפָּט-mishpat
[3] Τhe eighth-century prophets where not the first which made an appeal for social justice. Relevant message from legendary individuals such as Samuel, Nathan and Elijah, postulate a unique impact to their contemporaries. At the same time, justice is prominent among the prophet’s demands; it is Micah’s first among his three virtues, Amos’ appeal to Israel, while Isaiah emphasized: “sacrifice without justice is worthless”. Sawyer, pp. 43-44
[4] Γεώργιος Γρατσέας, Η Περί Πτωχείας Διδασκαλία Της Αγίας Γραφής (Αthens: ΕΝ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΣ, 1962), pp. 18–19.
[5] Γρατσέας, p. 31.
[6] John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Evagrius Ponticus, John the Merciful, Gregory Palamas.
[7] Gordon McConville, Exploring the Old Testament: The Prophets Volume 4, 1st Edition (London: SPCK Publishing, 2002), p. 47.
[8] McConville, p. 54. The even according to McConville might have been the Feast of Tabernacles.
[9] No date, no reference to which it was delivered or the reaction of the audience.
[10] Sawyer, p. 100.
[11] Matthew 21.12,13; Mark 11.15-19; Luke 19.45-47; John 2.13-22
[12] J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1980), p. 275.
[13] Longman III Tremperer, New International Biblical Commentary, Jeremiah, Lamentations (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), p. 71.
[14] Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, Isaiah to Malachi, ed. by Francis D. Nichol (USA: Review And Herald Publishing Association, 1977), i, p. 386.
[15] Nichol, i, p. 387.
[16] Robert P. Carroll, The Book of Jeremiah (London: SCM Press, 1986), p. 208.
[17] Thompson, p. 277.
[18] Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), p. 96.
[19] Nichol, i, p. 387.
[20] Archbishop of Constantinople, 4th -5th c. A.D
[21] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1995), xlviii, col. 853–854.
[22] Carroll, p. 209.
[23] Allen, pp. 95-96.
[24] Nichol, i, p. 387.
[25] Sawyer, p. 100.
[26] Διώτης, xlviii, col. 847.
[27] Instead of robbers like in the original text.
[28] Ιωάννου Του Χρυσοστόμου Έργα, ed. by Κωνσταντίνος Λουκάκης (Αthens: Ο Λόγος, 1975), x, p. 184.
[29] Patriarch of Alexandria, 4th-5th c. A.D.
[30] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1993), lxxi, col. 703A.
[31] Μπουγάτσου, i, p. 9. (making a reference to E. Durkheim)
[32] Allen, p. 94.
[33] Carroll, p. 209.
[34] Nichol, i, p. 386.
[35] William Lee Holladay, Jeremiah: Spokesman out of Time (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1974), p. 67.
[36] Ιωάννης Σ. Πέτρου, Κοινωνική Δικαιοσύνη (Θεσσαλονίκη: Παρατηρητής, 1992), p. 70.
[37] Aliens, fatherless and widows.
[38] Tremperer, pp. 71–72.
[39] Sawyer, p. 45.
[40] Nichol, i, p. 387.
[41] Θανάση Ν. Παπαθανασίου, Κοινωνική Δικαιοσύνη Και Ορθόδοξη Θεολογία, 3rd edn (Νέα Σμύρνη: ΑΚΡΙΤΑΣ, 2006), p. 23.
[42] Θανάση Ν. Παπαθανασίου, Ο Θεός Μου Ο Αλλοδαπός, 3rd edn (Νέα Σμύρνη: ΑΚΡΙΤΑΣ, 2008), p. 45.
[43] Παπαθανασίου, Κοινωνική Δικαιοσύνη Και Ορθόδοξη Θεολογία, p. 16.
[44] Διώτης, xlviii, col. 986–988.
[45] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1997), li, col. 97.
[46] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1997), lx, col. 336.
[47] Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Asia Minor, 4th c. A.D.
[48] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1999), xxxii, col. 1160D–1161A.
[49] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1990), xxxi, col. 275–278.
[50] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1996), xxix, col. 261C.
[51] Ware, p. 69.
[52] Ανδρέας Χ. Αργυρόπουλος, Το Επαναστατικό Μήνυμα Των Τριών Ιεραρχών (Αthens: Ναυτίλος, 2009), pp. 18–19.
[53] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Michaelis P. Lequien (Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1864), xcv, col. 1489D.
[54] Archbishop of Constantinople and theologian, 4th c. A.D
[55] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1992), xci, col. 976B.
[56] Διώτης, xci, col. 765D.
[57] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 2002), xcvi, col. 349B.
[58] Lequien, xcv, col. 1544B.
[59] Monk and ascetic, 4th c. A.D
[60] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1994), xl, col. 1269A.
[61] Patriarch of Alexandria, 7thc. A.D.
[62] Παπαθανασίου, Κοινωνική Δικαιοσύνη Και Ορθόδοξη Θεολογία, p. 34.
[63] Κάλλιστος Ware, Η Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία (Nea Smyrni: ΑΚΡΙΤΑΣ, 1998), p. 67.
[64] Orthodox theologian and Archbishop of Thessaloniki, 11th c. A.D
[65] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 2000), cli, col. 304C.
[66] Gutierrez, pp. 340–342.
[67] Γρατσέας, p. 36.
[68] Tremperer, p. 72.
[69] Πέτρου, p. 90.
[70] Thompson, pp. 278–279.
[71] Ν.Θ. Μπουγάτσου, Κοινωνική Διδασκαλία Ελλήνων Πατέρων (Αθήνα: Αποστολική Διακονία της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 1980), i, p. 9.
[72] Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 135.
[73] Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed. by William P. Brown (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), p. 18.
[74] John Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel (Oxford, United Kingdom: OUP Oxford, 2014), pp. 265–266.
[75] Αργυρόπουλος, p. 28.
[76] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 2003), xxxv, col. 892A–B.
[77] Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah Interpretation (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1988), p. 45.
[78] Paul Louis Lehmann, The Decalogue And a Human Future (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), p. 225.
[79] Gustavo Gutierrez, Θεολογία Της Απελευθέρωσης (Αthens: Άρτος Ζωής, 2012), p. 339.
[80] David G. Myers, Social Psychology, 8th edition (McGraw-Hill, 2005), pp. 150–151.
[81] Nichol, i, p. 387.
[82] Jeremiah 7. 26, 2 Peter 2. 20
[83] Nichol, i, p. 388.
[84] Historian of Christianity, exegete and Bishop of Caesarea Maritima, 4th c. A.D.
[85] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1998), xxii, col. 709D.
[86] Sawyer, p. 101.
[87] Carroll, p. 210.
[88] Holladay, p. 65.
[89] Γεώργιος Κωνσταντινίδης, Νέον Εγκυκλοπαιδικόν Λεξικόν Της Αγίας Γραφής, 2nd edn (Αθήνα: Ο Λόγος, 1985), p. 830.
[90] 1 Samuel 5.1
[91] Psalm 78. 60
[92] Nichol, i, p. 388.
[93] Holladay, p. 66.
[94] J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, ed. by Ιωάννης Κ. Διώτης, Greek (Athens: Centre For Patristic Publications, 1993), lxx, col. 501B.
[95] Πέτρου, p. 104.
[96] Erich Fromm, Να Έχεις Ή Να Είσαι (Αγ. Παρασκευή: Διόπτρα, 2016), p. 202.
[97] Fromm, p. 203,207.