After Susannah was threatened with death she cried:

I am in dire straits  for if I would do this now, it is death to me, yet if I would not, I will not escape your hands, but it is better for me, having not done this, to fall into your hands than to sin against the Lord.

In commenting on this Hippolytus firmly declares that it is better to die for God, than to deny Him and live in this world.  From what we know of Hippolytus, he followed his own advice and died as a martyr and witness of Christ.  I am reminded once more of the countless believers who have died and still do die for Christ, surely God Himself will be their blessing.

Behold the words of the temperate woman who heeded God .  She says ‘I am in dire straits,’ for the church is persecuted and oppressed  by the Jews, but also the Gentiles  and by those who falsely call themselves Christians, who always behold the temperance and tranquility of the church and use force to destroy her.  Susannah says “Therefore if I would do this, it is death to me.”  For to disobey God and to obey men is death and makes for eternal chastisement. “Yet if I would not, I will not escape your hands.”  And she has said this truth, for those who are brought forward for the sake of the Name of Christ, if they would do what is commanded by men, they die to God, but live to the world, if they do not do what is commanded, they do not escape the hands of the judges, but being condemned by the same judges, they die.

For it is better for you, having not done what is commanded by men, to fall into their hands, than to sin before the Lord.  For this is more profitable: to die at the hands of unrighteous men, so that we live with God, than, consenting to them and after being ruined by them, to fall into the hands of God. “For on account of this our Lord Jesus Christ also lived and died and rose again, so that he might reign over the living and the dead”

This week Hippolytus discusses the passage in the book of Susannah where the two wicked elders trap her in her husband’s garden and try to force her to commit adultery with them.

And as her maidens went out of the garden, the elders rose and said to Susannah “Behold, the doors of the garden are locked and no one can see us and we lust for you.  Therefore consent to use and sleep with us.  But if not, we will testify against you that a young man was with you”

The elders are here essentially threatening Susannah with death if she does not consent to them.  Hippolytus had previously stated that  the two elders represented two people groups, the Gentiles and the Jews, who were persecuting Hippolytus’ fellow Christians.  He further elaborates on this:

For you may now also find these things fulfilled in the Church.  For when the two peoples agree to destroy the lives  of saints, they observe  a fitting day and, after rushing in to the house of God, where people pray and hymn to God, they lay hold of them and drag them off and arrest them saying “Come, consent to us and sacrifice to our gods, but if not we will testify against you.”  Of those not willing to sacrifice, they lead them to the court, charge them as practicing what is contrary to the decree of Caesar and condemn them to death.

Hippolytus first touches on the theme of persecution in the church when he comes to the passage of the two wicked elders spying on Susanna walking in the garden.  He allegorically interprets the story and applies it to the contemporary situation in the church, later on in his commentary he becomes more explicit about the persecution that his fellow Christians suffered.

“And it happened as the people departed in the middle of the day Susanna entered to walk around in the garden of her husband and the Elders saw her everyday and became inflamed in lust for her .”

For concerning what happened to Susanna by the Elders, these things are even now in the same way done by the chiefs of the people in Babylon.  For Susanna is a foretype of the church, Jehoiakim her husband is Christ.  The garden was the calling of the saints as the fruit bearing tree produces fruit in the church.  Babylon is the world. But the two Elders represent the type of two peoples scheming against the church, one who is of the circumcision and one who is of the gentiles.  For it is said, “They were appointed as chiefs and judges of the people,”  signaling that in this age they have authority and power, unrighteously judging the righteous. But they zealously watched Susanna walking in the garden every day, this signals that until now they, who are both from the Gentiles and the Jews from the circumcision, watch and interfere in the business of the church, wishing to bring false testimonies against us, just as the apostle says, “On account of the secretly introduced false brethren, who were brought in to spy out the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus.”

-update- Fixed a grammatical error

Last week we spoke about how Hippolytus claims that Susanna was the daughter of Jehoiakim who was the son of the last king of Judah.  This week we will see that Hippolytus goes even further, claiming that Susanna was the daughter of Hilkia the high priest and that her uncle was no other than Jeremiah the prophet.  Further Hippolytus goes on to say that the great-grandson of Susanna was Zerubabbel who laid the foundation of the 2nd temple.  For a much needed picture of the genealogy go here. Hippolytus also points out a gap in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus

She was a daughter of Hilkia the priest, who found the book of the law in the house of the Lord, when Josiah the king ordered him to cleanse the Holy of Holies.  His brother was Jeremiah the Prophet… And so these, being from priestly lineage, from the tribe of Levi, mixed with the tribe of Judah, so that through the two righteous tribes, by their unity, the righteousness of Christ according to the fleshly seed, may be shown,  so that He who was born from them in Bethlehem may be proclaimed as Christ and Priest of God.

For also Matthew, wishing to trace  the pure and faultless descent of Christ according to the flesh until Joseph, coming to Josiah he omits his five sons and names Jeconiah, who while in Babylon was begotten from Susanna, skipping  from righteous seed to righteous seed. For he says, “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers during the deportation to Babylon.”    How is this declared? For Josiah reigned in the land of Judah thirty-one years and he died there.  Therefore how is it possible that having died there he begot Jeconiah in Babylon?    From this it is necessary to observe that Matthew traced the genealogy of him who was begotten from Jehoiakim and from Susanna, as Jehoiakim was the son of Eliakim who was called Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.    For Matthew was not able to trace the genealogy of him who was banished by the Holy Spirit, as being in the line of this Jeconiah,  as some deceivers maintain.  For this cripple was brought into Babylon and there as a prisoner was turning the mill childless and died. So that scripture does not idly teach us saying, “And there was a man living in Babylon and his name was Jehoiakim and he took a wife, Susanna by name, a daughter of Hilkia, who was exceedingly beautiful and feared the Lord.”    And so Jeconiah was begotten by her, and Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.  He together with Ezra the scribe and Joshua the son of Jehozadak came up to Jerusalem according to the command of Cyrus the Persian.   And thus continued the pure race of the fathers until the generation of Jesus Christ.

Hippolytus explains the gap in Matthew’s genealogy by claiming that Matthew simply skipped the generations of those who were deemed too evil to be named as an ancestor of Christ.  Much the same argument is used by “old Earth” Christians who say that the genealogies in Genesis may very well be filled with gaps.  Hippolytus does draw some interesting conclusions, but we cannot be sure of his accuracy.  To this day scholars still struggle to successfully identify the names of those involved in the Babylonian captivity in the rebuilding of Jerusalem.  If any experts on Biblical genealogies are reading this, please comment!

Next week we will turn to a primary theme in Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel: persecution.

Much of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel focuses on the persecution of Daniel and his companions and how this relates to the Church.  However, at the start of his work Hippolytus seems to enjoy describing the background behind the Book of Daniel and explaining some of its difficulties.  Last week he spoke of why the Book of Susannah was out of chronological order, this week he will speak about geneaological matters:

For these are the five sons of the blessed Josiah [the King of Judah]: Jehoahaz, Eliakem who was also called Jehoiakim, Johanan,  Zedekiah who was also called Jeconiah, and Shallum…Therefore scripture describes these things this way so that it may signal the occurrence of the captivity of the people, while Jehoiakim, the son of Eliakim who was also called Jehoiakim , was deported and those with him, the three youths together with Daniel were taken. Thus Jehoiakim was the husband of Susanna.

Here Hippolytus argues that Jehoiakim, the son of the last king of Judah (also named Jehoiakim who’s other name was Eliakem) was Susannah’s husband.  None of this is explicit in scripture, but Hippolytus does make an interesting point.  In my old Brenton translation of the Septuagint I see that Jehoiakim is variously spelled Ιωακιμ, Ιωαχιμ, and Ιωακειμ (Daniel 1:1; 2 Kings 24:8,12 2 Chron. 36:10 )  Hippolytus uses one spelling for all of them (as far as I can tell).  I don’t know Hebrew and don’t have an updated Septuagint on hand to do anymore analysis.

Hippolytus seems to have had a real interest in chronology and genealogy, which makes sense given that he wrote an entire book on them The Chronicon.  Next week we’ll finish off this genealogical stuff with Hippolytus’ rather intriguing discussion on why the genealogies in Matthew and Luke leave out some people mentioned in Daniel, and Hippolytus’ theory on how Jeremiah, Susannah, and others were all related to each other.

As mentioned last week, Hippolytus began his Commentary on Daniel with a summary of events, namely the Babylonian Captivity, which caused Daniel to be found in Babylon.  Hippolytus then starts to comment on the Book of Susannah, which he considered part of the canonical Book of Daniel.  Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians consider this as part of the Apocrypha today.  In the following passage Hippolytus explains why, in his copy,  Susannah is found at the beginning of the book of Daniel and not later on in the book, which would make more chronological sense:

Therefore the account itself [The book of Susannah] occurs later, but it is written before as the first of the book.   For it was the custom of the scribes to place many things in reverted order in the scriptures.  For we also find in the visions of the prophets, some which occurred first are even fulfilled at the end, and in turn again what is spoken last occurs even first.   This occurs by the economy of the Spirit, so that the devil may not understand the things which are spoken by the prophets in parables and, having ensnared Man again a second time, kill him.

Roger Pearse has asked how the Greek text of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel was completed.  My German is not very good, but from what I understand from the german introduction, Marcel Richard (editor) was able to use ultra-violet light to read part of the most important manuscript, Codex Vatopedi Cod. Paris. Suppl. gr. 68, that had been made illegible due to water damage.  This helped restore part of the text.  Some additional Catenae were used as well as, I think, a new manuscript, to fill in the gaps.  Here and there M. Richard also reconstructed words or phrases.  Although entire chapters were previously only available in Church Slavonic, these made up perhaps only 3% of the text, most of it was available in Greek by 1900.

If someone knows more, or if I am wrong, please let me know.

-Update-

I originally listed the wrong manuscript (or part of the manuscript) See comments for more information.