In celebration of “International Septuagint Day” Tyler Williams presents us with some Reasons to Study the Septuagint (in Honour of International Septuagint Day). I had also recently listened to D. A Carson’s sermon/lecture at UCCF Staff Training Conference on Psalm 40 where he talks about his understanding of how the LXX translates verse 40:7 and how Hebrews uses this psalm. Then Michael Heiser blogs about Hebrews’ quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 in The Naked Bible. He links to an article by Karen Jobes The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7 where she contends that the author was using paronomasia for rhetorical effect.

So I thought it would be interesting to talk about Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40:7 by looking at Carson’s exposition and raising some questions. The reason why I think Carson’s treatment is useful is because he is not trying to get into technical stuff but wants to make Psalm 40 understood as a whole. I also thought it was a worthwhile exercise to see how he dealt with Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40.

Here is the passage in Psalm 40:7 (LXX 39:7):

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (NIV)

* The LXX has “my ears you have prepared”

And Hebrews 10:5:

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; (NIV)
Read more »

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (Psalm 23:5)

Even people who may not be too familiar with the biblical text will recognize the phrase “my cup runneth over” as coming from the Bible (and some might even guess it is from a psalm or Psalm 23). But, what does that really mean… my cup runneth over/overflows? Yalkut Shemoni (A haggadic compilation on the books of the Old Testament) has, in my view, an unexpected interpretation:

Said R. Abbaye, “from here we learn that the cup of David in the times to come [Messianic Age] will hold 221 logs [133 liters].”

Now that’s a big cup.

Although here we get no explanation of why David will have such a big eschatological cup in the Messianic Age, we know where the number 221 comes from. Gematria is the calculation of numerical equivalence of letters, words or phrases. For example David in Hebrew is דוד (sometimes also spelled דויד), since each letter has a numerical value we get ד = 4) + (ו = 6) + (ד = 4) = 14). New Testament commentators point out that Matthews’ genealogy revolves around the number 14 which, as we just saw, is David’s number.

The Hebrew word translated as “runneth over” (more literally translated as “satiation” as in JPS’s translation “my cup is full”) is רויה, (ר=200; ו=6; י=10; ה=5) = 221. Therefore, according to this interpretation, the phrase כוסי רויה stands for “my cup is 221″ which is then attributed to David in the future.

This type of interpretation does not seem very promising if we are interested in understanding what it is meant by “my cup is full” without the dubious aid of gematria. But it does put the focus on the very interesting word רויה (satiation).
Read more »

I had the privilege of preaching on Amos 5:18-27 in my church, and the time spent preparing for it was precious. One of the things that impressed me as I read what people had to say about chapter 5, and in particular 5:18-27, is the different ways that Amos can be appropriated and used in various times and cultures.

I would like to show you an example of how Amos is used in the 1st and 20th centuries. First I want to consider how Stephen quoted verses 5:26-27 in Acts 7 and then how Martin Luther King Jr. quoted verse 5:24 in his famous I Have a Dream speech.

Beyond Babylon

As Stephen talked about the idolatry of Israel in the wilderness, he makes a connection between that idolatry and later worship of false gods. He cites Amos 5:25-27 which basically follows the Septuagint (LXX) with minor variations. Although the differences between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX are worth studying, I am only interested here in Stephen’s use of “Babylon” at the end of Acts 7:43. The basic context is that Israel committed idolatry and, because of that, God would send the people into exile. Here are the verses:

And I will send you into exile beyond Babylon. (Acts 7:43b)

And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, MT)

And I will send you into exile beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27a, LXX)

Both MT and LXX agree that the exile will be beyond Damascus whereas Stephen changes it to Babylon. On the reason why Stephen chose “beyond Babylon” instead of “beyond Damascus” (i.e., in Assyria), I. Howard Marshall says,

“Stephen, with the advantage of hindsight, took the prophecy to include the definitive captivity of Judah in Babylon and paraphrased it accordingly.” (Commentary of the NT Use of the OT [Baker Academy, 2007] p. 566).

If I understand Marshall correctly, the more significant exile of the Southern Kingdom of Judah became paradigmatic of the very idea of exile and his use of Babylon gives us a bigger picture of the extent of God’s punishment.

If this is correct, it is interesting to observe that Stephen preserves the spirit of what Amos was saying. In this sense, the other differences that we see between the MT and the LXX still keep the main point intact, that is, because of the people’s idolatry, God will send them into Exile.

Can we call this a hindsight use of Scriptures?
Read more »