Psalm 45 Publications

Introductory Note: To the best of my knowledge, most of the exegetical writings of Theodoret have never been translated into English. His expositional works are available in the original Greek, however, and I have recently employed them in my study of the fourth of Jeremiah’s Lamentations. I took the liberty to translate his interpretation of this lamentation, in order to make it available to the English-speaking reader. Please take a moment to glance through this brief, straightforward, and delightful exposition, and if nothing else, pay attention to Theodoret’s explanation of the twentieth verse!

If this portion of his works has indeed been previously translated, contrary to my current knowledge, I would love to know about it — so please let me know if I am wrong.

The Interpretation of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, by the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus

Chapter Four

How the gold has become dimmed, the good silver has been changed! Have the holy stones been scattered out from the top of all the streets?

He likens the godliness of the forebears to these materials, and mourns the change which has come about in the descendants; for this he makes evident in the following things. Continue Reading

Hebrew is a language of picturesque imagery and vivid story-telling. It lacks the precise, formulaic logical exactness of Greek grammar, but more than makes up for this deficiency in its unique ability to paint brilliant pictures, and speak to the very soul of the reader. These characteristics have an important impact on the way we go about the task of addressing exegetical questions in the Old Testament scriptures. Questions of New Testament interpretation demand a minute tracing out of every logical step, by means of the participial structuring of the sentence, the placement of logical connectors, and so on. This process is very natural to the adept western mind, and it is no co-incidence that there are, as a rule, more outstanding New Testament exegetes than truly outstanding Old Testament exegetes in the western world. Continue Reading

As many (but not all) of you are no doubt aware, I have recently begun working with a team that is in the final stages of revising a new translation of the scriptures into Russian. My role is basically to consult with the team in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), as they carry out their final exegetical check. In case anyone wants to get a feel for the kind of questions we deal with from day to day, and the kinds of processes we use to answer them, I have traced out on paper, first, a typical exegetical question (this one from Acts 4:17-18); and second, a brief sketch of the means by which we arrived at an opinion. The question is as follows: when the Sanhedrin gave Peter and John the command not to speak or preach “epi to onomati” [upon the name] of Jesus, were they intending to forbid them to speak about the name of Jesus, as might be naturally expected, and as several translations suggest – or does the usage of the preposition epi demand a different understanding of the precise intention of the command? Continue Reading

Hebrews 6:4-6 is the classic Arminian text to argue against the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance. It has certainly been understood in quite a variety of ways – and one’s precise interpretation of the phrase “having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” is, in particular, especially weighty, because it may influence or even determine his understanding of some very important doctrines. So in any translation we certainly must have the goal of bringing out the sense of the verse as accurately and understandably as possible, without giving any additional reasons, over and above the explicit testimony of the text, to embrace a particular theology – which is actually quite a difficult task, I think, in this passage. Continue Reading

1 Corinthians 14:22 is one of those passages which, upon a cursory reading, contain a glaring difficulty. If the most natural and obvious way of understanding the phrase “sign for unbelievers” is accepted, then the verse is in direct and irreconcilable contradiction with the immediate context. The same observation holds true for the implied “[sign] for believers,” later in the verse. The initial reaction to this phrase, particularly in one who has some prior knowledge of the functioning of signs in a biblical-theological context, must be that the gift of tongues is a sign which is “for” unbelievers in the sense that it tends to their advantage, or serves to produce or abet faith. Likewise, prophecy must presumably be to the advantage of believers, edifying and building up their faith. However, if this assessment is correct, we immediately encounter insurmountable difficulties. Regarding tongues, if it is exclusively a gift for the advantage of unbelievers, the previous verse is inexplicable, which prophesies rather the opposite, namely, that tongues would not be an effective sign for producing the hearing of faith. Furthermore, it contradicts the following verse, which indicates that the reaction of an unbeliever to the tongues-manifestations of the Corinthian church would be skepticism (“You are mad!”); and it is also in conflict with other assertions within the broader context of the chapter, which speak of tongues as being to the advantage of believers, and not unbelievers merely (cf., for instance, 1 Corinthians 14:4). In the same way, if prophecy is a sign for the advantage of believers, serving to strengthen their faith, then why do the following verses speak only of how the sign falls out to the advantage of the visiting unbeliever, and say nothing of how a believer may be benefited? Continue Reading

The questions surrounding the precise interpretation of Romans 6:4 have the added import that they often spill over into one’s exegesis of Romans 6:5. The question, as it affects our treatment of the following verse, is this: is water baptism here spoken of as the means by which we are united with Christ and with the events of his life, irrespective of symbolism; or is it a symbolic death and resurrection, by which we re-enact the dying and rising of Christ, and so become joined to his redemptive acts of death to sin and rising to life in our inner person? In other words, does the symbolism of baptism intend, broadly, a union with Christ in all of his redemptive acts; or does it only have a pictorial force, and thus signify, more narrowly, a participation in his dying and rising again? Of particular relevance in answering this question is the exact force of the preposition “dia”, which most likely signifies instrumentality, that is, the means of union, without intending any symbolic recapitulation. We became united to Christ through baptism, not in baptism; which expresses only the fact of union, and leaves untouched the symbolic mode in which this union is expressed. More to the point, this phrase does not necessarily imply that baptism is a picture of Christ’s death, and that when we are baptized we are symbolically participating in his death. It simply says that, through the rite of baptism, we are joined to Christ, particularly with respect to the redemptive events of his work on earth (although the caveat that there is no implication of intrinsic efficacy in baptism must be stressed). Continue Reading