Fantastic article!! It is clear that one must bring subjective context into reading scripture but it must be such that it connects the reader with true things
I thought the example of a poet reciting his poem afresh when asked its meaning was spot on — scripture must be taken in its wholeness and by getting to pedantic and scientific with it we risk alienating ourselves from its deepest meanings
Great question, John. Many thanks! I would say that many people who read the biblical text almost exclusively historically have a great deal off academic background invested in their position. Also, the search for the one true meaning of the text is thoroughly wedded to a modern metaphysic. If you try to shake those kinds of trees, people get upset.
As a priest I knew used to say, “Everything is Christ.” The same Logos made manifest and revealed in Christ is also equally present in the Scriptures and all of creation.
This begs the question: As the Body of Christ, isn’t the Church nothing less than all of creation?
The evangelicals I've known seem to think that the Fathers are already tainted by being extra-biblical. Of course, the evangelicals I've known are buffoons.
Exodus 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
CONSIDER EXACTLY WHAT IS "HIS NAME" WHAT DOES IT MEAN "MY NAME IS IN HIM"?
1) FIRST WHAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD'S NAME
Acts 2:21... Whosoever SHALL CALL UPON 🎯THE NAME🎯 OF THE LORD shall be saved
THE KEY IS UNDERSTANDING THE NAME OF THE LORD
UNDERSTAND WHY THE QUESTION FAITH IN HIS NAME vs WORKS IS MOOT. IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT OLD NAME v NEW NAME (His name is the comandments, doctrine, sayings, covenant itself) NOT THE LETTERS THAT SPELL OUT "WORD" BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MESSAGE-WORD. GODS NAME CAN ONLY BE CSLLED ON OR LIVED OUT IN ONES LIFE, WRITTEN ON YOUR HEART. YOU CANNOT PRONOUNCE GODS NAME AS ONE PRONOUNCES BILL, BOB OR JESUS. 👇💥👇
👉Ps 138:2. praise 🎯THY NAME 🎯… thou hast magnified 👉THY WORD👈 ABOVE ALL 🎯THY NAME🎯
It does NOT say "thy word" is given a name above other names. Praise the NAME - WORD for it is above ALL THY NAME…. many colquial names were used In OT & by the people to reference God but here the word is praised “PRAISE THY NAME FOR ( BECAUSE ) for the very reason THE WORD is ABOVE (the highest) of ALL NAMES USED…
ERGO: “HIS NAME IS CALL THE WORD OF GOD”……. AND HIS PEOPLE CALL THAT NAME WONDERFUL, EVERLASTING et al ad fin.
Rev 19:13. ..🎯HIS NAME🎯 IS called 👉THE WORD👈 OF GOD
Isaiah 52:1.6. Therefore MY PEOPLE SHALL KNOW 🎯MY NAME:🎯
Rev 3:8 kept 👉MY WORD👈,.. not DENIED 🎯MY NAME🎯
Jn 17:6.... MANIFESTED 🎯THY NAME🎯 KEPT 👉THY WORD👈
THE NAME above every name ->saves 1Pt 3:21 & Acts 4:12
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that Whosoever SHALL CALL UPON 🎯THE NAME🎯 OF THE LORD shall be saved
Acts 4:12....for there is 🎯NONE OTHER NAME🎯..., whereby we must be saved.
NOTE: THE PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE , THE "WASH" HERE IS THE ACT OF "CALLING"👇
Acts 22:16 ...arise, and be 🌊BAPTISED🌊, and 🌊WASH🌊 away thy sins, CALLING ON 🎯THE NAME🎯 of the Lord.:
The name is structurally & contextually used synonomous with “the word”……The word was made flesh …. Call it wonderful, it is everlasting, the mighty God [ THE WORD BECAME FLESH] call on the word via obediance not verbal pronounciations….... or reject the word which is Gods name and perish. FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME......
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even 🌊BAPTISIM🌊 DOETH ALSO now SAVE us ....by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 5:26....sanctify and cleanse it with the 🌊WASHING of WATER🌊 by 👉THE WORD👈
Galatians 3:24 .... 27 For as many of you as have been 🌊BAPTISED🌊 INTO CHRIST have PUT ON CHRIST.
Psalms 51:2 🌊WASH ME🌊 THROUGHLY FROM MINE INIQUITY, and 🩸CLEANSE ME FROM MY SIN🩸...3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin .....10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and ✳RENEW A RIGHT SPIRIT✳within me..
Titus 3:5 ..by the 🌊WASHING🌊 of regeneration, and ✳RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST.✳...
...16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
THE LIFE IN YOUR MORTAL BODIES = John 6:63....THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
John 14:23..., If a man ♥️LOVE ME♥️, he will 👉KEEP MY WORDS👈: and my Father will love him,....
1 John 5:3..♥️THIS IS THE LOVE ♥️of God, that we 👉KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS👈:
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he... that HEAR the words of this prophecy, and 👉KEEP THOES THINGS WRITTEN👈 therein: for the time is at hand. Rev22:18...unto every man that HEARETH the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,...19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation offers an interesting theological dilemma. It states Rev 22:16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto U these things in the churches. Also states it is "the true sayings" of Jesus & that it is "the testimony of Christ". If this is not "the gospel of Jesus Christ" then what is it & should we consider it accursed testimony of an angel? If it is not to be considered accursed, then it cannot be some other gospel message then what was already given. However, this is the conundrum, for if this is the gospel, then why do so few understand it? There is a possibility which few consider. The reason people don't understand revelation is because they never understood the gospel in the first place! Is it not curious the most "Personally" given NT book By Jesus himself, is the least understood & given the least importance for Salvation in Christendom?
"Tremper Longman III rejects the traditional christological reading of the Song of Songs with the observation,"
Maybe he is just slow of heart.
Luke tells us of the story about Jesus and the two disciples walking on the Emmaus road. Luke reports that Jesus himself "interpreted" or "translated" all the law and the prophets, meaning the Old Testament, showing that all of it was about him.
"And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke is saying that Jesus read the scriptures as typology and allegory, loaded with meaning about him. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is certainly good enough for us.
Hebrews says that God used to speak at many times and in many ways but now he speaks "in Son." I intentionally left out the "his" in the English translation. I wrote a post about why.
Also, do you remember the source from that egregious Tremper Longmann quote on the Canticle? I remember reading a book where he said something similar while speaking ill of St. Cyril and St. Gregory’s exegesis. I would love to track it down again! Thank you
Hi, Dr. Boersma - I appreciate your writing and work for the church. I was confused by the citing of some of the works early on: "Recent titles such as Reading while Black, Women and the Gender of God, and Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations all illustrate the tendency to let one’s background and context shape one’s interpretation of the biblical text." Were you saying that these works were examples of a wrongheaded tendency to bring one's background to bear, or were you saying that these works promote a healthy viewpoint of background influence and we ought to be more aware of that? I thought it might go either way.
Sorry for the confusion, Steve. I meant the former. These are examples of a wrongheaded approach that allows one’s background to determine his interpretation in unhealthy ways.
I think my impression of Reading While Black may have caused the confusion. I believe Dr. McCaulley's argument is that one's background can help him or her to see what is objectively in Scripture when others may not be apt to see it because of a different background. From the examples he gave, I think there is merit to his position. Is that what you're objecting to, or did you have other aspects of his work in mind?
Fr. Hans, thank you for your wonderful work in this area. Do you have any thoughts on why one of the most common reactions to Patristic exegesis is Fear? I suppose a healthy fear of misusing a text is good. But why aren’t we just as fearful that in our modern ways of reading we are in danger of failing to recognize the risen Jesus (Luke 24)?
Very fair question. I suspect that, as moderns, we are afraid of loss of control. Historical exegesis offers control or mastery of the text. That we aren't as fearful to recognize Jesus Christ shows just how modern we are, and how secondary our mystagogical aims are to us.
Fantastic article!! It is clear that one must bring subjective context into reading scripture but it must be such that it connects the reader with true things
I thought the example of a poet reciting his poem afresh when asked its meaning was spot on — scripture must be taken in its wholeness and by getting to pedantic and scientific with it we risk alienating ourselves from its deepest meanings
The deep Christocentrism within the Fathers is precisely the Biblical key that many moderns have lost. Amazing article as usual Fr. Boersma
Great question, John. Many thanks! I would say that many people who read the biblical text almost exclusively historically have a great deal off academic background invested in their position. Also, the search for the one true meaning of the text is thoroughly wedded to a modern metaphysic. If you try to shake those kinds of trees, people get upset.
As a priest I knew used to say, “Everything is Christ.” The same Logos made manifest and revealed in Christ is also equally present in the Scriptures and all of creation.
This begs the question: As the Body of Christ, isn’t the Church nothing less than all of creation?
The evangelicals I've known seem to think that the Fathers are already tainted by being extra-biblical. Of course, the evangelicals I've known are buffoons.
Exodus 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
CONSIDER EXACTLY WHAT IS "HIS NAME" WHAT DOES IT MEAN "MY NAME IS IN HIM"?
1) FIRST WHAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD'S NAME
Acts 2:21... Whosoever SHALL CALL UPON 🎯THE NAME🎯 OF THE LORD shall be saved
THE KEY IS UNDERSTANDING THE NAME OF THE LORD
UNDERSTAND WHY THE QUESTION FAITH IN HIS NAME vs WORKS IS MOOT. IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT OLD NAME v NEW NAME (His name is the comandments, doctrine, sayings, covenant itself) NOT THE LETTERS THAT SPELL OUT "WORD" BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MESSAGE-WORD. GODS NAME CAN ONLY BE CSLLED ON OR LIVED OUT IN ONES LIFE, WRITTEN ON YOUR HEART. YOU CANNOT PRONOUNCE GODS NAME AS ONE PRONOUNCES BILL, BOB OR JESUS. 👇💥👇
👉Ps 138:2. praise 🎯THY NAME 🎯… thou hast magnified 👉THY WORD👈 ABOVE ALL 🎯THY NAME🎯
It does NOT say "thy word" is given a name above other names. Praise the NAME - WORD for it is above ALL THY NAME…. many colquial names were used In OT & by the people to reference God but here the word is praised “PRAISE THY NAME FOR ( BECAUSE ) for the very reason THE WORD is ABOVE (the highest) of ALL NAMES USED…
ERGO: “HIS NAME IS CALL THE WORD OF GOD”……. AND HIS PEOPLE CALL THAT NAME WONDERFUL, EVERLASTING et al ad fin.
Rev 19:13. ..🎯HIS NAME🎯 IS called 👉THE WORD👈 OF GOD
Isaiah 52:1.6. Therefore MY PEOPLE SHALL KNOW 🎯MY NAME:🎯
Rev 3:8 kept 👉MY WORD👈,.. not DENIED 🎯MY NAME🎯
Jn 17:6.... MANIFESTED 🎯THY NAME🎯 KEPT 👉THY WORD👈
THE NAME above every name ->saves 1Pt 3:21 & Acts 4:12
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that Whosoever SHALL CALL UPON 🎯THE NAME🎯 OF THE LORD shall be saved
Acts 4:12....for there is 🎯NONE OTHER NAME🎯..., whereby we must be saved.
NOTE: THE PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE , THE "WASH" HERE IS THE ACT OF "CALLING"👇
Acts 22:16 ...arise, and be 🌊BAPTISED🌊, and 🌊WASH🌊 away thy sins, CALLING ON 🎯THE NAME🎯 of the Lord.:
The name is structurally & contextually used synonomous with “the word”……The word was made flesh …. Call it wonderful, it is everlasting, the mighty God [ THE WORD BECAME FLESH] call on the word via obediance not verbal pronounciations….... or reject the word which is Gods name and perish. FOR THERE IS NO OTHER NAME......
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even 🌊BAPTISIM🌊 DOETH ALSO now SAVE us ....by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 5:26....sanctify and cleanse it with the 🌊WASHING of WATER🌊 by 👉THE WORD👈
Galatians 3:24 .... 27 For as many of you as have been 🌊BAPTISED🌊 INTO CHRIST have PUT ON CHRIST.
Psalms 51:2 🌊WASH ME🌊 THROUGHLY FROM MINE INIQUITY, and 🩸CLEANSE ME FROM MY SIN🩸...3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin .....10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and ✳RENEW A RIGHT SPIRIT✳within me..
Titus 3:5 ..by the 🌊WASHING🌊 of regeneration, and ✳RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST.✳...
...16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
THE LIFE IN YOUR MORTAL BODIES = John 6:63....THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE.
John 14:23..., If a man ♥️LOVE ME♥️, he will 👉KEEP MY WORDS👈: and my Father will love him,....
1 John 5:3..♥️THIS IS THE LOVE ♥️of God, that we 👉KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS👈:
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he... that HEAR the words of this prophecy, and 👉KEEP THOES THINGS WRITTEN👈 therein: for the time is at hand. Rev22:18...unto every man that HEARETH the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things,...19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation offers an interesting theological dilemma. It states Rev 22:16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto U these things in the churches. Also states it is "the true sayings" of Jesus & that it is "the testimony of Christ". If this is not "the gospel of Jesus Christ" then what is it & should we consider it accursed testimony of an angel? If it is not to be considered accursed, then it cannot be some other gospel message then what was already given. However, this is the conundrum, for if this is the gospel, then why do so few understand it? There is a possibility which few consider. The reason people don't understand revelation is because they never understood the gospel in the first place! Is it not curious the most "Personally" given NT book By Jesus himself, is the least understood & given the least importance for Salvation in Christendom?
https://www.scribd.com/document/326686356/Thief-Cross-3D
https://www.academia.edu/23846490/Thief_and_Cross_3D
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305366745/Revelation-the-First-Gospel-of-the-Kingdom
"Tremper Longman III rejects the traditional christological reading of the Song of Songs with the observation,"
Maybe he is just slow of heart.
Luke tells us of the story about Jesus and the two disciples walking on the Emmaus road. Luke reports that Jesus himself "interpreted" or "translated" all the law and the prophets, meaning the Old Testament, showing that all of it was about him.
"And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Luke is saying that Jesus read the scriptures as typology and allegory, loaded with meaning about him. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is certainly good enough for us.
Hebrews says that God used to speak at many times and in many ways but now he speaks "in Son." I intentionally left out the "his" in the English translation. I wrote a post about why.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-188031707
Beautiful fr. Boersma! Thank you for this.
Also, do you remember the source from that egregious Tremper Longmann quote on the Canticle? I remember reading a book where he said something similar while speaking ill of St. Cyril and St. Gregory’s exegesis. I would love to track it down again! Thank you
I dn't remember for sure, Josiah, but I seem to recall it is from his Song of Songs commentary.
Hi, Dr. Boersma - I appreciate your writing and work for the church. I was confused by the citing of some of the works early on: "Recent titles such as Reading while Black, Women and the Gender of God, and Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations all illustrate the tendency to let one’s background and context shape one’s interpretation of the biblical text." Were you saying that these works were examples of a wrongheaded tendency to bring one's background to bear, or were you saying that these works promote a healthy viewpoint of background influence and we ought to be more aware of that? I thought it might go either way.
Sorry for the confusion, Steve. I meant the former. These are examples of a wrongheaded approach that allows one’s background to determine his interpretation in unhealthy ways.
I think my impression of Reading While Black may have caused the confusion. I believe Dr. McCaulley's argument is that one's background can help him or her to see what is objectively in Scripture when others may not be apt to see it because of a different background. From the examples he gave, I think there is merit to his position. Is that what you're objecting to, or did you have other aspects of his work in mind?
Have you read ‘The Sin of Certainty’ by Peter Enns? He is excellent.
Thanks!
Fr. Hans, thank you for your wonderful work in this area. Do you have any thoughts on why one of the most common reactions to Patristic exegesis is Fear? I suppose a healthy fear of misusing a text is good. But why aren’t we just as fearful that in our modern ways of reading we are in danger of failing to recognize the risen Jesus (Luke 24)?
Very fair question. I suspect that, as moderns, we are afraid of loss of control. Historical exegesis offers control or mastery of the text. That we aren't as fearful to recognize Jesus Christ shows just how modern we are, and how secondary our mystagogical aims are to us.
certainty appears to be the elimination of fear
but it is actually the absence of truth