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 »

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 »

One of the passages used to illustrate the NT use of the OT in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament was Galatians 3 concerning Paul’s use of the word “seed.” I was especially interested in this passage because I remember being quite impressed with N. T. Wright’s treatment of it in The Climax of the Covenant a few years ago. In this post, I would like to do three things: 1) summarize each author’s understanding of this passage; 2) bring N. T. Wright into the conversation and explain, in broad strokes, his exegesis; and 3) ask which of the three views best reflects N. T. Wright’s approach.

Since Peter Enns chose the “seed” passage as one of his examples and elaborated on it in his essay, we get a fuller picture of Enns’ approach related to this particular issue. Kaiser and Bock merely responded to Enns so there will be some inevitable reading between the lines. But since I am only interested in the approach and not a full exegesis of the text, I believe each position can be fairly outlined (at least I will attempt to do that).
Read more »

Berding, Kenneth, Stanley N. Gundry and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Issues surrounding the NT use of the OT have been of great interest to me for a long time, so it was with equally great delight that I read yet another contribution to this complicated and yet fascinating field of study.

The structure of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is very simple. It contains an introduction, closing remarks by one of the editors and three essays followed by a response by the two other opposing views. Although the length of the essays were adequate, I wish more space had been given for the responses.

The three views represented are:

Walter Kaiser – Single Meaning, Unified Referents
Darrell Bock – Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents
Peter Enns – Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

The task of each author was to answer the following questions:

• Is sensus plenior an appropriate way of explaining the NT use of the OT?
• How is typology best understood?
• Do the NT writers take into account the context of the passages they cite?
• Does the NT writers’ use of Jewish exegetical methods explain the NT use of the OT?
• Are we able to replicate the exegetical and hermeneutical approaches to the OT that we find in the writings of the NT?

It would be pointless to reproduce the arguments of each author here since this is a complex subject and there is no way I can do justice to their views. But I would like to make some general observations and share some personal impressions of the different positions and the book.
Read more »

Beale, G. K. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids Michigan: BakerBooks,1994.

This is a collection of 22 essays on the NT use of the OT. The authors have different perspectives on whether or not the NT writers respected the context of the OT passages they used. I especially liked the essays of Paul’s use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3 because you could clearly see how the way one views this issue will change the interpretation of certain texts. I thought Morna D. Hooker’s essay was much better. I wish there were more essays of this type showing how authors with different perspective approach the same passage.

This collection is unbalanced as G. K. Beale felt that the position that sees the NT writers honoring the OT context has been outnumbered and this is a way to attempt to even the playing field. But I also think that the collection is unbalanced by the choice of essays of the opposition. The writing style of some of the writers will be off-putting to some people. For example, Morna D. Hooker, when referring to Paul’s use of Exodus 34, says that “there are blatant contradictions and non sequiturs in Paul’s argument” (290). Of course, this is qualified later as the point is to show that, according to Paul’s method of exegesis, these apparent contradictions are “due to the peculiarities of the text” (290) and not Paul’s inability as an interpreter. I think that another book like this should be edited which contained papers by writers like Peter Enns who will be a much better representative. Read more »

Holmgren, Fredrik C. The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus: Embrancing Change – Maintaining Christian Identity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999.

This book is interesting for many reasons. One of them is that the author tries to show the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, both of which share in common what Christians call the Old Testament. He tries to explain the various interpretive methods that Jews and Christians use to understand “their Bibles.” For example, he argues that Christians did not find Jesus by reading the OT but tried to explain their experience of Jesus through the Scriptures. This involved a depth/imaginative interpretation (which I think is his way of referring to midrash). For this reason it is hardly fair for Christians to criticize Jews for not seeing Jesus in their Bible. Of course, the same holds true for Jews who also engage in depth/imaginative interpretation for their own purposes. Jacob Neusner says:

Judaism inherits and makes the Hebrew Bible its own, just as does Christianity. But just as Christianity rereads the entire heritage of Ancient Israel in light of the “resurrection of Jesus Christ” so Judaism understands Hebrew Scriptures as only one part, the written one, of the one whole Torah of Moses, our rabbi” (124).

The author then talks about the meaning of “and it was fulfilled” in the NT. For the author the Greek word for “fulfill” can have the meaning of “corresponds to,” “is similar/analogous to,” or even “reminds one of” (42). Then he tackles the subject of Jesus and the sinaic covenant (in other words, how Christians came to see the law). He attempts to show that the attitude towards Torah in the NT is not unified and failure to understand the different emphases is due to a failure to pay attention to the context within which the subject of Torah is being treated. He then talks about the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31-34 both in the OT and NT. Read more »

I recommend an article by Rikki Watts called “Immanuel: Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic Warning of Things to Come (Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23)?” in From Prophecy to Testament edited by Craig Evans (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub. Inc., 2004) . It is a very thought-provoking article as he discusses the background of Isaiah concerning Immanuel and the different approaches to understanding the function of the name. Is Immanuel, “God with Us,” primarily a good or bad thing? Blessing or judgment? Although Watts recognizes that the term certainly can be used for salvation and blessing, “God with Us” is also used in contexts where judgment is in view. And it is judgment that makes more sense in the Isaiah passage. What Matthew does by citing Isa. 7:14 is to prepare the reader for the Immanuel citation. So “both names – Immanuel and Jesus – set the agenda for the gospel” and “they evoke different aspects of [the original Isaianic setting] – salvation and judgment” (113). Read more »