This post is adapted from the notes of a sermon recently preached by the leader of my local Messianic Fellowship.

It is recorded in Luke 4:14-22 that when Yeshua was asked to read the Haftarah in his home synagogue, he read from Isaiah 61 and declared that this Scripture was fulfilled in their hearing, a bold claim! Yeshua didn’t attend the local Episcopalian Church, he went to synagogue, not this once, but as was his custom Luke 4:16. He was at home and welcome there, as the scroll was handed to him, it was his aliyah, his honour to go up and read on Shabbat. He even unrolls it and goes to Isaiah 61, we are not sure that this was the parasha for that Shabbat or not or whether the parashot had been instituted by this time, but this is where he turned and read. Some say Isaiah 61 was not designated as a parasha reading at all and a parasha has to have at least 21 verses to the reading. However, as this is one of the earliest records of a synagogue service, in any literature, who knows what tradition had developed by that time, so it is hard to assert anything other than he opened the Isaiah scroll and found where it was written (v17), and read it.

Everything seems in order until the reading is ended and Yeshua talks and they all seemed to like it, just puzzled that a carpenter’s son spoke so well. Even when he claims these couple of verses from Isaiah are fulfilled in their hearing. The problem came when Yeshua pushes them with his parable and they feel disrespected as he won’t perform on command for them. Maybe they were excitedly expecting something after his fulfilment declaration following those few verse from Isaiah!

Yeshua claimed that what some theologians have called God’s tempest, is on him referring to the וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת  of Genesis 1 ר֛וּחַ אֲדֹנָ֥י יְהוִ֖ה עָלָ֑י  – “the spirit of the Lord is on me”. When the spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep things changed, and changed dramatically, what was once formless and void became the world we know today. This spirit of God was on him and really did bring change to his relationship with his home town.

¹ ר֛וּחַ אֲדֹנָ֥י יְהוִ֖ה עָלָ֑י יַ֡עַן מָשַׁח֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֹתִ֜י לְבַשֵּׂ֣ר עֲנָוִ֗ים שְׁלָחַ֙נִי֙ לַחֲבֹ֣שׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי־לֵ֔ב לִקְרֹ֤א לִשְׁבוּיִם֙ דְּרֹ֔ור וְלַאֲסוּרִ֖ים פְּקַח־קֹֽוחַ׃

² לִקְרֹ֤א שְׁנַת־רָצֹון֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה

¹The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah [is] on me, Because Jehovah did anoint me To proclaim tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives liberty, And to bound ones an opening of bands.  ²To proclaim the year of the good pleasure of Jehovah

Luke 4:18-19 (Textus Receptus) ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance,  ¹⁹ To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’

However where is “recovery of sight to the blind” in Isaiah 61, it is not in the Hebrew text, but it is in the Greek Septuagint LXX – Luke 4:18 “και τυφλοις αναβλεψιν” So did the pre-Christian Jewish LXX get it wrong. Did Luke include the seeming mistake by just copying the LXX Greek rather than translating it himself? Did Yeshua read a copy of the LXX in the Nazareth synagogue as some commentaries claim was the case in those times if a Hebrew scroll was unaffordable?

Although Luke’s version of Isaiah 61:1-2a starts 100% like the LXX it then changes half way through verse one and uses different words to the Greek of the LXX, which has the same meaning, apart from the fact that Textus Receptus Luke also misses out “bind the broken hearted” לַחֲבֹ֣שׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי־לֵ֔ב which the LXX does have ιασασθαι τους συντετριμμενους τη καρδια. - is there no manuscriptal explanation for this omission?

Comparison of Greek TR of Luke 4 and LXX Greek of Isaiah 61

Differences highlighted in red.

Luke 4:18-19

¹⁸πνευμα κυριου επ εμε ου εινεκεν εχρισεν με ευαγγελισασθαι πτωχοις απεσταλκεν με κηρυξαι αιχμαλωτοις αφεσιν και τυφλοις αναβλεψιν αποστειλαι τεθραυσμενους εν αφεσει

¹⁹κηρυξαι ενιαυτον κυριου δεκτον

Isaiah (LXX) 61:1-2a

61:1 πνευμα κυριου επ’ εμε ου εινεκεν εχρισεν με ευαγγελισασθαι πτωχοις απεσταλκεν με ιασασθαι τους συντετριμμενους τη καρδια κηρυξαι αιχμαλωτοις αφεσιν και τυφλοις αναβλεψιν

61:2 καλεσαι ενιαυτον κυριου δεκτον

So Luke seems to add something which is not in the Hebrew but is in the LXX (sight to the blind) and leave out something that is there in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61 and the LXX (bind the broken hearted), he also uses different Greek vocabulary half way through. So what happened?

The Geneva Bible (1599), Tyndale (1534), Stephanus (1550) & Websters(1833) has the section of healing the broken heart that is missing in Textus Receptus but keeps the bit added to Isaiah 61 on recovery of sight to the blind.

Luke 4:18-19, Geneva Bible. ¹⁸ The Spirit of the Lord is vpon mee, because he hath anoynted me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poore: he hath sent mee, that I should heale the broken hearted, that I should preach deliuerance to the captiues, and recouering of sight to the blinde, that I should set at libertie them that are bruised:  ¹⁹ And that I should preache the acceptable yeere of the Lord.

This reading reflects other uncial manuscripts that differ from Textus Receptus, namely Codex Alexandrinus (the biggest challenger to Textus Receptus), Codex Coridethianus, Codex Athous Lavrensis and six  more. So there is a strong variant reading on Luke 4:18 that gets it right on “bind the broken of heart”. We are left with the conclusion that Textus Receptus got it wrong by leaving this out and the variant reading lead by Alexandrius got it right.However we are still left with the insertion of recovery of sight to the blind in Textus Receptus and Alexandrius!

We know Yeshua opened the scroll to Isaiah, stood up to read, found where it was written, then starts to read Isaiah 61:1 correctly and then anti-missionaries claim Luke gets it wrong. Our English versions following Textus Receptus and not Alexandrius’ variant reading on this seems to have got it wrong. So now we have an answer as to why bind the broken heart is missing in most of our English language versions. What about the addition of ’sight to the blind’, well that is in the pre-Christian LXX.

What about the different Greek words used in the Textus Receptus of Luke 4:18-19 that conflict with the Greek of the LXX of Isaiah 61:1-2a? Maybe Yeshua himself or Luke changes the words for more clarity, which was a common thing in the Targums, as we see in the Targum on Isaiah where the Spirit of the Lord is called the Spirit of prophecy. Was this a mistake? No, the Targums translated the words and the sense of the Hebrew to Aramaic. It seems very likely that this is what happened here with these remaining Greek words; Luke translated from Hebrew to Greek using the LXX as his template. Our English translations follow Textus Receptus instead of the variant reading lead by Alexandrius. So there you go the  accusation that Luke got it wrong, is unfair, Erasmus got it wrong!

These questions about Proverbs 29:1 come in via the About page:

1. Is it possible that this verse refers to, or alludes to, a broken neck (spinal column), with no possibility of mending (except, in modern times, T-cells)?

2. What is with the references to “reprover” and “fire” in the LXX?

The verse is (NRSV): “One who is often reproved, yet remains stubborn, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.”

The Neck

Regarding the first question, I’d hate to say that it’s impossible that this is a broken neck, but I don’t think it’s very likely. The phrase “neck-hard” or “hard of neck” (k’she oref) that we find in Proverbs 29:1 is a common one, and it seems to refer to stubbornness. We find it applied to the people Israel in Exodus (32:9, 33:3, 33:5, and 34:9) and in Deuteronomy (9:6 and 9:13). It seems to be a negative trait that can describe a group. Furthermore, it’s not the neck that breaks in Proverbs 29:1, but the person who has it.

I’m not sure how we’d know if an idiom were used literally. (It would be like “he kicked the bucket” meaning someone who literally gave the bucket a kick.) But because we have no evidence to point to a literal meaning, I think the idiomatic one is our best guess.

The final word, marpei, is common in Proverbs. Some things have no marpei, as here, and as in Proverbs 6:15 (and Jeremiah 14:19). Other times, something can bring marpei: in Proverbs 12:18, it’s the tongue of the wise.

Proverbs 29:1 promises no marpei for the stubborn who are broken. That’s where “beyond healing” (NRSV) comes from. But I think the phrasing in the NRSV (and others) is off. It’s not, “…will be broken beyond repair,” but rather “…will be broken; [the situation] will be beyond repair.”

The Fire

The LXX’s flegomenou (“set on fire”) is surprising.

Often when the LXX differs significantly from the Hebrew, it’s because the LXX reflects a different interpretation of the Hebrew — usually a different way of adding vowels to the consonantal text — or actually a different (sometimes erroneous) Hebrew text. Frequently, the alternative text that gave us the variations in the LXX involves one or more Hebrew letters having been copied incorrectly. For example, we often find a vav (long line) for a yud (short line), which is manifested in sound as an /o/ or /u/ for an /i/ or /ei/; sometimes we see swapped or missing letters.

In the case of “better than a stiff-necked man” (Brenton LXX translation), it seems that the LXX translators took makshei oref and read it as mikshei oref. The latter phrase means “than a stiff necked person.” From there, maybe someone added “better.” The details of the Hebrew grammar here are complicated, and ultimately this case isn’t all that interesting.

But the “fire” is very interesting. There’s no Hebrew word in Proverbs 29:1 that — even with letter changes — seems to have to do with “fire.” But — and this is the fun part — Proverbs 6:15 ends with the same four words as Proverbs 29:1. And in Proverbs 6:15, we find the somewhat rare Hebrew word eid, which (probably) means something like “disaster.”

However, make the middle yud of eid into a vav and you get oud, “firebrand!”

So I think the LXX’s “fire” comes not from Proverbs 29:1 but from (a misreading of) the similar Proverbs 6:15.

Great question.

Perhaps no passage in Scripture presents such a problem to the KJV Only view¹, as Luke 4:16-22.  In this first post, we will offer a brief explanation of the text, an examination of the quotation in verses 18-19, and a some historical support for our position.  In future posts, we will draw out the implications from the text which impact the version debate, and provide some answers to common KJV Only counter-arguments.

Explanation of the Text

Luke 4:16 explains Christ stood to read the text in the synagogue.  This was the common practice.  Jesus will read and then expound the text.  Vs. 17 explains he will read from the scroll of Isaiah, and he opens the scroll and proceeds to read.

Bibles that provide Jesus’ words in red, do a disservice to our text.  An ESV Bible I have sitting here, has vs. 18-19 in red.  But if we examine vs. 17 more closely, we’ll see that Luke is not telling us what Jesus “said” but what was written in the book that was in Jesus’ hand.

Luke says (using the KJV text here), “when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written”.  Then follows vs. 18-19.  Luke does not say Jesus said those words.  From vs. 20, it is clear that he had read them, as he rolls the scroll back up and sits down (to begin his teaching, as the custom prescribed).  So clearly Jesus read from that passage of Scripture.  But Luke gives us what the scroll said.  He tells us what was written (or what “stood written”, to better reflect the perfect tense of the Greek words here).

Luke as the inspired author of Scripture is making a statement concerning what was written on the scroll in the Nazareth synagogue.  Now we’ll look more closely at what Luke tells us was written there.

Examination of the Quotation

Using the KJV English as a comparison, the chart below shows where the quote in Luke 4:18-19 departs from the Hebrew Original as translated by the KJV in Isaiah 61:1-2. (You may want to click on the image to enlarge it.)

You’ll notice that some of the differences are quite minor (“to”/”unto”, “poor”/”meek”, “preach deliverance”/”proclaim liberty”).  Others are more significant: “Lord GOD” (Adonai Jehovah) becomes “Lord”, “LORD” (Jehovah) becomes “he”, “bruised” becomes “bound”.  And even more problematic, an entire phrase is found in Luke that is not in Isaiah 61: “recovering of sight to the blind”.  A similar phrase is found in Isaiah 42:7, but it doesn’t match up exactly.  It was common for readers in the prophets to skip around a bit, and read portions of verses from the nearby chapters.  Even allowing for this, it does not appear that the exact wording Luke records in Luke 4 is found in the King James Version in Isaiah (and we would assume in the Hebrew Masoretic Text behind the KJV).

Now this all gets very interesting once we compare the Greek of Luke 4 with the Greek of the Septuagint Old Testament (LXX) in Isaiah 61.

Here we see the differences are much less.  The first two involve alternate spellings of the same word.  In the NA27 and the Majority Text Greek, the spelling of the LXX is followed.  The third instance of a difference, followed by the TR and MT,² and in English it amounts to “the broken of heart” vs. “the broken of hearts” (or as often translated, “brokenhearted”).  The fourth instance is similar to the English example in the KJV, “preach” vs. “declare”.

Most interesting to note here, is that the phrase above which the KJV/Hebrew does not have in Isaiah 61, “the recovering of sight to the blind” is found in the Greek LXX and matches the wording exactly in all the versions of the Greek NT (TR, MT & NA27).  There is a missing phrase found in Luke and not in Isaiah LXX, however.  “To set at liberty them that are bruised” is not in the LXX.  However an almost exact form of this phrase is found in Is. 58:6.  That form matches more perfectly than the missing English phrase does from Is. 42 (see above).  So again, if we consider the common practice of reading from nearby chapters, then we have a much clearer story of where the quotation came from that Luke says was written in the scroll at the Nazareth synagogue.

Historical Support

This evidence has led many scholars down through the ages to conclude that a form of the Greek Septuagint was used in the synagogue where Jesus preached that day.  Let me provide a quote from Matthew Poole’s Commentary (1685) to show the historicity of this view.

Ver. 17-19. The words differ in some things from the words of the prophet out of which they are quoted, Isa. 61:1, where is nothing of recovering of sight to the blind; but they exactly agree with the Septuagint version, only, Luk. 4:19, they have kalesai, to call, and Luke hath khruxai, to preach, according to which probably the copies of the Septuagint in use with them were. It was their manner in the synagogues for the minister (an officer appointed to that purpose, see Luk. 4:20) to bring the book of the law or of the prophets which was to be read, and to deliver it to him that officiated for that time, who, when he had read, redelivered it to the same officer to be laid up. Their writers tell us, that the books of Moses were divided into several portions, which they were tied to read in order; but for the books of the prophets, he that officiated was more at liberty to read in what place and proportion he pleased. Our Lord readeth Isa. 61:1, which, according to the Septuagint copy, was as Luke here translated; and by the way, this custom of the writers of the New Testament, (writing in Greek), to quote texts out of the Old Testament, very often according to that Septuagint translation, may, first, give us some account of the difficulty we met with Luk. 3:1-38, where Sala was made the son of Cainan, and the grandchild of Arphaxad, whereas Moses mentions no Cainan, Gen. 11:1-32 Luke, taking the quotation of the Septuagint, might put it in according to them, for they have it in Gen. 11:12. Secondly, it may learn us not to be too curious as to minute things in Scripture, for had it been a thing of moment, the Holy Spirit of God had certainly never suffered Luke to write after their copy, either there or here. God never had a church in any place, but he soon stirred up some to make an interpretation of the Scriptures for their use, and so far assisted them, that though they might differ from the Hebrew text, or the Greek, in some minute things, yet they differed not in any thing of moment necessary for us to know and believe in order to salvation. And the frequent quotations we have in the New Testament out of the Septuagint, incline us to think that it is the will of God, that particular persons in churches should make use of such versions, and take them for the Holy Scriptures, not lightly and ordinarily varying from them; the translating of Scriptures, being not an ordinary ministerial gift, but the work of some stirred up by God unto it, and whom he more than ordinarily so assists, as that they have not erred in any momentous thing. If this may be admitted, we need not lay the fault upon those who transcribed Luke’s copy. But let us come to the text itself.³

…to be continued in future posts.

Footnotes

¹ I should point out that I’m using “KJV Only” as a convenient descriptor, and I’m well aware of a wide variety of positions with respect to the Textus Receptus and the KJV.  All of those views are affected by this passage, so I won’t bother to distinguish between them here.

² The NA27 text follows a textual variant at this point.  The phrase (in English): “to heal the brokenhearted” is missing in many manuscripts.  The editors of the NA27 text believe that the phrase was added (intentionally or unintentionally) by well-meaning scribes wanting to harmonize Luke’s quote with the Septuagint at that point.

³ Half of Poole’s Commentary was compiled and finished by fellow non-conformist ministers as he died before its completion.  For more info about Matthew Poole click here.  This quote is part of the work not original to Poole, and is from the comments on Luke 4:17, taken from an E-Sword module of Matthew Poole’s commentary. Some formatting may have been updated by E-Sword (verse reference style). Poole’s commentary is available online to download for use with Online Bible, Sword Searcher or E-Sword. Links to a Google Books version of the commentary set are here (but the quote above is from a missing page out of the book Google scanned). Emphasis added.

The Psalms have always been central to the worship, liturgies, prayers, devotions, and songs of countless Christians across the centuries.  In the Psalter one can find cries of joy and pain, brokenness and rage, helplessness and confidence.  In other words, the voices in the Psalms are real, very real, and in their heart-felt transparency lies a great deal of their popularity and importance.  They teach us how to pray, how to grieve, how to rejoice–i.e., how to live as believers in the real world with its ups and down.

Here’s how Luther more eloquently summed up the great value of the Psalms in the believer’s life:

Every Christian who would abound in prayer and piety ought, in all reason, to make the Psalter his manual; and, moreover, it were well if every Christian so used it and were so expert in it as to have it word for word by heart, and could have it even in his heart as often as he chanced to be called to speak or act, that he might be able to draw forth or employ some sentence out of it, by way of a proverb. For indeed the truth is, that everything that a pious heart can desire to ask in prayer, it here finds Psalms and words to match, so aptly and sweetly, that no man—no, nor all the men in the world—shall be able to devise forms of words so good and devout. (from Luther’s 1545 Preface to the Psalter)

I love to read from the Psalms each day, but still I long to be more familiar with them than I am.  With this in mind, I began my Personal Psalter Project earlier this week.  I purchased a Moleskine notebook and have begun copying, by hand, one Psalm per day until I have copied all 150.  I am copying them from the New Living Translation, which is my favorite translation, but am taking advantage of the luxury of a single-column setup to take advantage of my own formatting, using different levels of indention to really make the parallelism stand out (similar to what is done in the excellent Psalter layout in God’s Word translation).  In addition, the extra space gives me room to make notes about Hebrew/LXX vocabulary, alternate translations, or personal thoughts.

I will post additional thoughts, as well as some pictures, as this project continues.

: : : : : : : : : : :

In my last post I asked whether we should use modern terms like “womb” and “stomach” to translate the ancient beten, which was used for both.

Similarly, what about “chair” and “throne”? It seems that, at least in the OT, one word was used for both different modern concepts.

The Hebrew for both is kisei. It’s a common word, so it’s not hard to find examples of a kisei for commoners (I Samuel 1:9, e.g.), for kings (II Samuel 3:10, e.g., where it’s used metonymically for “kingdom”), and for God (Psalm 11:4).

Though the Greek thronos is used consistently in the LXX for kisei, in the NT thronos seems more narrowly reserved for kings and other dignitaries (Luke 1:32, Revelation 4:4) and God (Matthew 5:34), though Satan (Revelation 2:13) gets one, too.

The Greek kathedra is used in the NT for ordinary chairs (Matthew 21:12), and in the LXX for the Hebrew moshav “seat” and more generally shevet “sitting.” (The Hebrew moshav seems to include seats of any kind, both “chairs” and “thrones.”)

Another way of looking kisei in the OT is to compare it to the modern English word “shoe.” Even though kings and ordinary folk wear different kinds of them (I think), there’s only one word for them (I think).

The translation issue is forced in I Kings 2:19, where King Solomon sits on his kisei and also orders a kisei brought for his mom (which, at the risk of editorializing, is really sweet). The KJV, ESV, and NJB use two different words here, first “throne” (for the king) then “seat” (for mom). The LXX (in Greek), NAB, NIV, NLT, and NRSV use the same word twice. (I’m a little surprised to find the “essentially literal” ESV using two words here, and the generally more idiomatic NLT sticking with one.)

The original Hebrew of I Kings 2:19 emphasizes the equality of Solomon and his mother. The KJV emphasizes the inequality of the two. The NRSV preserves the equality, but does so by giving Bathsheba a throne.

Elsewhere, the translator has to decide between “chair” and “throne” for God. By choosing “throne,” God is necessarily like royalty; and while that’s certainly a common metaphor for God in the OT, how do we know it’s always what the Hebrew meant? In the famous vision of Isaiah 6, for example, the only clue to a kingship metaphor is the word “throne” in English.

Should a translation preserve the OT way of looking at things that are sat upon (if you’ll pardon my grammar), the NT way, or go straight for the modern English way?

Quotations

THE  GOSPELS  AND ACTS

The  use of the LXX in  the  Gospels  and Acts  raises  the  interesting question  of  whether  Jesus  and  the  early  church  leaders   themselves used the Greek  Bible.  This is a complicated  issue  that  has occupied the attention  of many  scholars.
Richard  N.  Longenecker  observes  that  in  the  Gospels,  when  Jesus quotes  Scripture,  the quotation  most  often  follows  the LXX reading, al­though  it is not certain  that  Jesus  himself  taught  in  Greek.  Even  if he did  teach in Greek  at times,  he probably  more  often  spoke  in his native tongue,  Aramaic.  Longenecker  points  out  that  even  in  the  Gospel  of Matthew, where the evangelist s own quotations of the  OT usually  follow the Hebrew  reading, the citations by Jesus  “are  strongly  Septuagintal.” (20)

20.  See  Richard  N.  Longenecker,   Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period,    2d   ed. (Grand  Rapids:  Eerdmans,  1999), 48.

Silva M. Invitation to the Septuagint(2000)

Of greater interest in reviewing the form of the quotations attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is that the great majority are Septuagintal in character. In most cases, of course, this is of no importance, for the Greek of the LXX is a fair translation of the Hebrew and Jesus could have made his point from either. In a few cases, however, it is the LXX reading, as against the reading of the MT or any known Targum, that provides Jesus with both the wording and the application he makes.

The Septuagintal character of Jesus’ biblical quotations, of course, poses a problem, which James Barr highlights in saying:

One of the peculiarities of Christianity is that the words of Jesus have not been preserved in the language in which they were originally spoken. Even from the earliest days there was no great effort—perhaps there was no effort at all—to ensure that his sayings should be kept alive in the original tongue. The tradition of his teaching was carefully cultivated and was set forth in the various versions of the different Gospels, but it was a tradition in translation.²⁶

Why, if Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic, is it that not only are his words recorded in Greek but his biblical quotations are based on the LXX, and not on a Hebrew or Aramaic version?

It will not do to say, as is commonly asserted, that Jesus’ LXX quotations indicate that they are simply part and parcel of the early Church’s Gemeindetheologie, and therefore probably not dominical. This may be argued for the Fourth Gospel, where the difference in form between the evangelist’s own citations and those included in his narrative is not that distinct. Or it may be claimed in the cases of Mark and Luke, who record the use of the Old Testament by Jesus and others but do not themselves frequently quote Scripture in their editorial comments. But it will hardly serve as an explanation for the biblical citations of Matthew’s Gospel, where the evangelist’s own eleven fulfillment formula quotations, though mixed in text form, are dominantly Semitic in character,²⁷ whereas those of Jesus, though also mixed in form (though to a more limited extent), are strongly Septuagintal.

²⁶ J. Barr, “Which Language Did Jesus Speak?—Some Remarks of a Semitist,” BJRL 53 (1970) 9.

LXX Septuagint (A = Alexandrinus; B = Vaticanus)

²⁷ See pp. 120–21 below.

Longenecker, R. N. (1999). Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period (2nd ed.) (47). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Vancouver: W.B. Eerdmans; Regent College Pub.

Could the allusion to Isaiah 45:16 (LXX) in Luke 13:17 provide an implicit statement of Luke’s Christology?  The phrase pa,ntej oi` avntikei,menoi auvtw/ (all who were opposed to him), which is shared by both the LXX translation of Isaiah and Luke, points to the shaming of opponents.  It is true that Isaiah uses the verb aivscu,nw while Luke uses kataiscu,nw, yet any difference in meaning is minimal.  In Isaiah the dative masculine personal pronoun certainly refers to o` qeo.j tou/ Israhl swth,r (the God of Israel, Savior), while in Luke the referent is Jesus as the opposed one. 

I don’t want to make hasty conclusions, but Luke’s use of this phrase, coupled with the fact that Jesus is explicitly called swth,r  in Luke’s Gospel (2:11), is highly suggestive.  Earlier in Luke’s narrative, another Sabbath incident causes Jesus to proclaim, ku,rio,j evstin tou/ sabba,tou o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath).  Luke’s use of  ku,rio,j (Lord) in 13:15 recalls that statement of authority, which is vividly demonstrated by the power he displays to declare deliverance to the crippled woman. 

Could it be that Luke also had in mind the next verse in the LXX (Isaiah 45:17) which states, Israhl sw,|zetai u`po. kuri,ou swthri,an aivw,nion ouvk aivscunqh,sontai ouvde. mh. evntrapw/sin e[wj tou/ aivw/noj (Israel is saved by the Lord with a salvation of the age: they shall not be ashamed nor confounded unto the age)?  If so, Luke is making a subtle point about who he believes Jesus to be.

I’ve gone back and forth while contemplating and studying the titles of the psalms (i.e. Ps. 18’s For the choir director [NLT]).  Were these titles written by the original author of the psalm?   Are they original or later additions?  Are they canonical and inspired?  By way of summary, here are what a few psalm scholars say.

Goldingay doubts the canonicity of the titles (Psalms 1-41 in the Baker OT commentary series p. 26-29).  Longman says they are historical and reliable, but not canonical (How to Read the Psalms, p. 41; cf An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 215).  Westermann wrote that the titles were part of the dynamic and ongoing tradition of Israel (Praise and Lament in the Psalms, p.257-258; several other authors say the same).  Mays says the titles “were not part of the original text, and were probably built up rather than prefixed in toto” (Psalms, p. 11).   Many “higher” critics say the titles are midrashic additions and absolutely not part of the canon.   While many of these above authors have made some solid comments concerning the origin of the titles, I think Mark Futato’s approach is the best (in Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook, pages 119-122).  Here it is – I’ll deal with the canonical aspect in a later post.

“The titles are canonical although not necessarily original.  It seems that at least some of the titles to individual psalms are not original to the text but were added later.”

He gives these reasons for his view that they are not necessarily original but later editorial additions.

1) The titles are written in the third person and thus have an editorial bent (he cites Kidner’s Psalms 1-72, p. 33).  Furthermore, I (spl) might add, they all have a similar grammatical style while the psalms themselves do not always have a similar style.

2) Only 116 psalms have titles in the MT (the Hebrew Bible) while the LXX (the Septuagint – not to mention other OT translations/collections) has titles for all but two psalms, proving that there was a certain “fluidity” in the titles even during the later stages of scribal collections of the psalms.

3) Psalms 14 and 53 are most likely two different versions of the same psalm - they are nearly identical in content, and the titles are almost the same.  The differences can be attributed to an editor of some sort.  ”The difference in titles suggests that the titles were added independently and, therefore, that at least one of the two was added after the original composition of the psalm.”

4) This one is an additional reason for the non-original view of the titles, found in Goldingay’s commentary (cited above).  Goldingay notes well that using titles was not the norm in the ANE; furthermore, he writes, using titles is not something we really see elsewhere in the OT.

I think Futato (and others with this view of some sort) is on to something.  If any book/collection in the OT has clear editorial work, it is the Psalter!  For example, while Psalm 69 has “to/of David” in its title, in 69.35 there is a pretty clear postexilic theme.  Also, Ps 72.20 is a clear editorial note: The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended (NRSV).  Finally, we can be pretty certain that the earliest and latest psalms span around 1,000 years – the collection was an ongoing thing at least to some extent.  There are of course more things to note as far as the editing of the psalter, these are but a few.

This shouldn’t trouble us too much, for this kind of editorial work is also found in the Pentateuch (and elsewhere) which talks about Moses’ death and the approximate location of his grave (Deut 34.5ff).  Therefore, I agree with Longman when he (with the late Ray Dillard) says the Psalter “was a dynamic, growing, and changing book during the canonical period” (An Introduction to the Old Testament, 219).  This is part of its beauty!  It is quite time bound on the one hand, on the other it in a way transcends time.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Still fiddling with the new WordPress features.  I like this theme much more than the last and I think I’ll stick with it for a while.  Points to whoever can name the document in the header pic.

I’ve also been fiddling with the text-critical issues in Isaiah 53.  I’ve never troubled to read the LXX translation, and now I know I was the poorer for it.  There are some fascinating changes, but the one that’s really piqued my interest is the LXX reading that clearly indicates a taw at the end of verse 8, thus producing the translation εἰς θάνατον. I’m not reading any secondary literature on the subject at the moment (part of the assignment) and I still have lots of other texts to finish reading, including both Isaiah scrolls from Qumran and a quick look over the Vulgate (as much as my non-existent Latin can manage at least), but what seemed at first like a clear case of later Christian interpolation does not seem so clear-cut to me now.  More anon.

Also, what did I do to my back!?  I’m like a friggin cripple here!

A few weeks ago we looked at the LXX. Amazingly enough, there are some KJVO’ers who deny its existence. They know that to acknowledge its existence is to open the door for Jesus and the apostles quoting from non-Hebrew scriptures as well as quoting from an imperfect translation. That would be very damaging to their cause.

F.F Bruce in The Canon of Scripture gives an instance of Justin Martyr quoting from the LXX. Justin lived many years before Origen, who is alleged by some KJVO believers to have actually created the LXX.  Where did Justin get his copy of the LXX, then?

John Gill, in his comments on Galatians 1:10 says, “no man can serve two masters, God and the world, Christ and men. The Septuagint version of Ps 53:5 is, ‘for God hath scattered the bones’, anyrwpareskwn, “of men pleasers”, to which agree the Syriac and Arabic versions.” Gill lived before Vaticanus was made available for study, and before Sinaiticus was discovered and studied, yet Gill knew of the LXX and quoted from it.

I cannot help but wonder what “doctored” manuscript Gill had access to. It seems to me that those who would deny the existence of the LXX need to examine the issue a little more.

King James Only Believers And The LXX

In their desire to repudiate the modern versions of the Scriptures, certain KJVO believers have taken it upon themselves to deny the existence of the Septuagint (LXX).¹ The reason for their doing so is given in their own words:

“Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.

Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.”²

“Codex B, the LXX, is a revision of the Greek texts extant during Origin’s time. He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. From this point on in this paper the OT Greek text, usually misnamed LXX or Septuagint, will be called the Greek Text of Origen, GTO. A Greek text of the minor prophets found in the Judean desert caves dates to around the time of “the second Jewish revolt in the years 132-135″ A.D. by the personal letters of Bar Kokhba. They cannot be claimed with any certainty as part of a B.C. Septuagint. As a matter of fact, they contain translational features found in other A.D. texts such as those of Aquila and of the Quinta.”³

In other words, these KJVO believers reject the existence of the LXX because it will support Codex B, the Vaticanus Manuscript, which includes the LXX. The existence of the LXX would mean that Codex B is much older than KJVO and TRO (Textus Receptus Only) believers declare it to be. It would also mean that New Testament quotations of the LXX lend support to Codex B. That would then destroy the idea that the Byzantine family of texts is the best and purest family of texts.

We must answer the question, then, concerning the existence of the LXX. We shall do that with two proofs:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran has yielded to us copies of the LXX in Greek.⁴

2. The words of Irenaus: “Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared – for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted; – [since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.”

Irenaeus, Against Heresies chp 21, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Note what Irenaeus is saying. He is telling us that the LXX existed in his day, which was many years before Origen. In other words, the story of Origen writing/manufacturing the LXX is simply a fabrication itself.

The question that we must now ask ourselves is this: which group is actually being more faithful to the original text? Is it the KJVO/TRO believers, or is it those who are using Codex B in their translation efforts? Suddenly, the textual issue shines more clearly. In fact, it becomes quite obvious that texts which are supported by Codex B are indeed texts that should be considered most valid. After all, Codex B and the LXX are of the same family: the Alexandrian family. Suddenly, we find that the Alexandrian texts are indeed reliable. After all, the apostles considered them to be such, and used them. My reply to the KJVO believers, then is, “If the Alexandrian texts were good enough for Paul, they’re good enough for me.”

We may indeed have great confidence in many of the modern versions which we have today! They are truly based upon older, more reliable manuscripts.

¹ http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009

² http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/miscellaneous/what_is_the_lxx.htm Accessed 08/02/2009

³ http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1763356/posts Accessed 08/02/2009

⁴ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html Accessed 08/02/2009

]]> http://theologyandculture.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/will-the-real-hebrew-bible-please-stand-up/ Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:05:52 +0000 Aaron Rathburn http://theologyandculture.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/will-the-real-hebrew-bible-please-stand-up/

In contrast to my formal philosophical studies, I’m focusing most of my private study in the area of biblical studies at the moment.  In particular, I am studying textual criticism, the formation of the canon, and its implications on our theological doctrine of scripture.  (I’m still a theology student at heart, so don’t pop-quiz me on any of this textual scholarship stuff

Anyway, in my canonical studies, obviously one issue that has come up is the apocryphal books—or as is perhaps preferred, the deuterocanon.  This includes such books as Maccabees, Sirach, etc.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches still use these, and the Protestants have chopped ‘em out.

I can still remember back when I was even a teenager being pretty annoyed by this development.  Why, I asked, did some Christians (the Reformers) think it was actually okay to just chop large swaths of the Bible out that had been used for 1,500 years?! And moreover, the New Testament authors (and early church) even preferred the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint, “LXX”), which included all of these books.  What was the deal?!

I’ve stumbled across an interesting article published in the Orthodox Study Bible, titled “Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon.”  It’s an interesting read, but here are some selected highlights:

The LXX is based on a very different text of the Old Testament from the Masoretic text, on which modern English translations are based. For instance, in many places the wording is quite different, and the content of the books also differs—generally the LXX text is longer, but there are also interesting additions to the Masoretic text that are not found in the LXX. [...]

[The Standardization of a Jewish vs. Christian Old Testament]

Judaism was quite fluid at the time of Christ. There were seven distinct sects of the Jews in the early first century, according to Eusebius. The different sects accepted the authority of different collections of books (e.g., the Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the five books of the Prophet Moses, the Torah), and there were often significant differences in the composition of the books they accepted in common. Sometimes the same sect might even make use of multiple text bases, or as scholars call them, text traditions. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls, containing the sacred texts of the Essene sect of Judaism, show evidence of the Masoretic, Samaritan, and LXX text bases.

However, with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an intense standardization process began. Only the Pharisee and the Samaritan sects of Judaism survived this process. The collection of Old Testament books into what eventually became the Masoretic text was begun by the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia, somewhere between AD 80 and 100, but was not completed until the sixth century. During this period, The Wisdom of Sirach, which was eventually excluded from the Masoretic text, was sometimes included in the Jewish canon, while Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, all of which eventually found a place in that text, were sometimes excluded.

The Pharisees wanted a standardized Hebrew text of the Old Testament partly because of the large number of Christian Jews. The older LXX version of the Old Testament contained many messianic passages that the Christians could use to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the early Christians charged that the Pharisees had deliberately truncated the canon to avoid messianic prophecy pointing toward Jesus Christ (see Justin Martyr, Trypho 71–73).

For instance, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX says, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”—this clearly refers to the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. On the other hand, the Pharisees’ version of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text only mentions a “young woman.” Moreover, many of the wisdom texts from the Deuterocanonical books, particularly Sirach, were commonly used by the Church as catechetical reading for converts. It is not surprising that the Pharisees would want to exclude these “Church texts” from their official Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

Since the Jews had never set an exact limit on the number of books in the Old Testament, it was not inconsistent with their own faith for the Pharisees to limit the books they wanted to include in their revised Hebrew canon. Like the early Church, the Jews of Christ’s time were not united around a particular set of texts (beyond the Torah, that is). They were organized around a liturgical life in the temple and synagogue. For this liturgical life, they came to use texts in the services. However, the liturgical life preceded the production of the texts and formed their context. Historically, as the Jewish faith developed in the synagogues and in temple worship during the postexilic period (the four to five hundred years preceding the coming of Messiah), texts came to be used in worship (e.g., the Psalms) and teaching. As mentioned above, the exact collection of texts varied depending on the sect.

However, with the loss of their center in Jerusalem and of unified temple worship (after AD 70), preserving the Jewish faith required greater standardization. The Jews could no longer afford divisions if they were to survive as a people. Thus, they needed a collection of unproblematic texts to use in their now dispersed population and synagogue-only worship. They needed to eliminate the use within their communities of texts useful to those whom they considered heretics (e.g., Christians, Gnostics, and Hellenizers). Particularly, they did not want to use in their services texts that the Christians could use to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Prophets of the Old Testament. The canon, or list of accepted texts, that the Jews produced as their standard is significantly shorter than the LXX and came to be known as the Masoretic text.

Interesting.  Skipping a down a bit, the article later moves on to the very question of the Protestant Reformers:

[The Truncating of the Protestant Canon]

Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books. The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage [Humanism]) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

[...] Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Isn’t that interesting?  Be sure and check out the article [LINK], and post your thoughts/comments here.

Desi mai vechi , articolele (1 & 2) d-lui Badilita despre LXX merita atentia din partea oricarui lector al Bibliei, care vrea sa aiba o minima orientare  in “peisajul” si istoria textului scripturistic.

Pornind de la viciul de metoda al traducerilor sinodale ortodoxe din secolul trecut, autorul trece in revista fugitiv istoria textelor Septuagintei si a Masoreticului, in final acuzand “reconcilierea à la roumaine”, mixajul “maximalist” care a nascut traducerile sinodale de pana la “revolutia” din 1989.

“Ispitand” apoi cititorul cu un “dumicat” de “Biblia şi Părinţii Bisericii”  , autorul vine si cu solutia:

Creştinii din România, de orice confesiune ar fi ei, au nevoie urgentă de două traduceri, una făcută după textul masoretic (plus textul grec ale fragmentelor redactate direct în greacă) şi, a doua, făcută exclusiv după textul grec al LXX.

Cum a doua parte a imperativului se apropie de o fericita implinire, mai ramanand un singur volum al Septuagintei de tiparit, ramane de vazut cine va termina misiunea: o traducere stiintifica a Vechiului Testament facuta exclusiv dupa Textul Masoretic. Abia apoi vom putea vorbi de studiu biblic serios pe Biblia in limba romana.

We left our Amharic books and Amharic Bible in Houston. But we miss studying this Ethiopian language and (periodically) attending the Tewahedo Church in Houston, so to compensate, we will periodically share extra-biblical stories from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church tradition. Here’s one such story about Simeon and how the controversial translation of παρθενος in OG/LXX Isaiah 7.14 came to be.

According to one priest in Houston (pretty sure this is not a documented story), Simeon of Luke 2 was a translator of the Hebrew Bible’s book of Isaiah into Greek. One day, when he happened to be wrestling with Isaiah 7, specifically how to translate העלמה. Mary and Joseph bring the young Jesus to Simeon in the temple and the narrative of Luke 2 happens. The Tewahedo story goes that Mary told Simeon their story and after that (and their exchange in the temple as recorded by Lk 2), he knew what to do. He would translate העלמה as παρθενος. Clearly a christological translation, if the story’s true.

While Matt 1.23 is the traditional re-appropriation of Isa 7.14, lets take a closer look at OG Isa 7 and Lk 2. Perhaps there’s a connection.

OG Isa 7.14 – Text and Translation
14 δια τουτο δωεσι κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον. ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον, και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου Εμμανουηλ.
14 Because of this, (the) Lord will give you a sign. Look, the virgin will become pregnant (lit. the virgin in womb will have) and give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel.

GNT Lk 2.34 – Text and Translation
34 και ευλογησεν αυτους Συμεων και ειπεν προς Μαριαμ την μητερα αυτου, ιδου ουτος κειται εις πτωσιν και αναστασιν πολλων εν τω Ισραηλ και εις σημειον αντιλεγομενον-
34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Listen, this one is destined to be the fall and rise of many in Israel and (he is destined) to be a refused sign.”

Next time(s), we’ll take a fuller look at Isaiah and Simeon, but for now, we’ll focus on the above verses that offer a connection from Isaiah’s prophecy to Simeon’s. And that connection is- σημειον. Unlike the Matthean re-appropriation which focuses on the new significance of the name of this child, Simeon (allegedly) re-appropriates the child as a σημειον, a sign. And, just like Ahaz rejected his sign in Isaiah’s time, Simeon knew this human sign, Jesus, would also be rejected as of sign in his own time.

Not an explicit connection, but its a cool story.

Judges 3:  God’s Wrath

^1(A) Now these are the nations that the LORD left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. ²It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before. ³These are the nations:^(B) the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath. ⁴They were for^(C) the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. ⁵So the people of Israel lived^(D) among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. ^6(E) And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods.

When we read the book of Judges, it is easy to read into it many assumptions which we take from being in a world which believes God is not good.  We must never forget that within the Trinity the Son had determined alongside the Father that He would be sent, and that all of man under the banner of Adam would be made in the image of Yeshua (Genesis 1:26-27; Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:29) – in the image of the Saviour who gave salvation.  That is testament enough to form our understanding of the coming chapters of the judges.  Though these are amazing men who relied much on the Spirit, they are nothing in comparison to the Christ who had the Spirit without measure (John 3:34).  These men indeed relied on the Spirit, but what was common to them was the universal disease of death which they could not defeat except in Christ alone.  The path between first birth and first death, being born-again in Spirit and finally in our renewed flesh is a rocky path littered with spiritual battles.  The typology of Israel, of the wars fought in these important books of the Old Testament, did not cease with the book of Joshua.  Indeed, the Israelites are to learn war, not because the LORD is a warmongering God of Marcion; rather, He is portraying an eschatological imagery of what would happen to those who are loyal to the true Husband, against the numbers of baalim (v.7), the number of adulterous husbands which we align ourselves to.

It is important that we understand the specific Hebrew word for baalim, for in these chapters we are speaking of men who have identified themselves as nations which worship other gods (v.6) – nations which attach themselves to other husbands (v.7; Judges2 :11; 3 :7, 12).  “Their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods” – a predicament which Melchizedek sought to prevent in Genesis 14 by pre-empting the king of Sodom.  Here also, is the implied meaning behind the intermingling of the nations.  Do we gain our blessings from God alone, as embodied in the High Priest Melchizedek?  Or do we gain our blessings from neighbouring nations, so that they are full of themselves and in turn delude us into believing that they received these blessings from their ‘gods’ or lack thereof?  Why else would these Israelites fall so easily, if they did not want to eat that forbidden fruit this present moment as opposed to look to New Creation as Abraham, Moses and many of the named judges in this book waited hopefully towards?

Furthermore, this is no “Old Testament teaching” when we speak of warfare – if anything, the nature of Paul’s exposition of the Old Testament is a thorough understanding of the true spiritual warfare which underpins many of the chronicles of these battles prior to Christ’s incarnation.  In Ephesians 6 we are made aware of the different body-pieces of armour; that our path of faith is called the “good warfare” (1 Timothy 1:18); the passions of our flesh seen as warring with our soul (James 4:1; 1 Peter 2:11); and above all Hebrews 11:34 which speaks of the Spirit and faith in Christ empowering them to be mighty in war, so to point towards the ultimate victory which Christ has won on the cross and physically and finally represented as in the prophecies of John in Revelation chapters 2 and 11-19.  We have already seen the failures of the people when they forget God; when they rely not on the Holy Spirit.  This new generation may not have tasted warfare, but every generation of Christians must taste true warfare, for it is not good in itself (1 Kings 5:3), but it is necessary (c.f. day two of creation which was not proclaimed as ‘good’ because it symbolised the death of Christ through the parting of the waters).  It is through these trials that their faith is more precious than the gold tested in the fire (1 Peter 1:7), and without these trials – without the temporary rain of judgment and pain – these spiritual babies would not grow to maturity; these spiritual saplings will not bear the fruit from the one Vine Whom they are attached to; and thus continually and with more greatness both look towards and typify the greatest light to shine when Christ is finally born.

Othniel

^7(F) And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. They forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and^(G) the Asheroth. ⁸Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,^(H) and he sold them into the hand of^(I) Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. And the people of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years. ⁹But when the people of Israel^(J) cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a^(K) deliverer for the people of Israel, who saved them,^(L) Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. ^10(M) The Spirit of the LORD was upon him, and he judged Israel. He went out to war, and the LORD gave Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand. And his hand prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim. ^11(N) So the land had rest forty years. Then Othniel the son of Kenaz died.

And so v.7-11 begins the cycle of captivity which Israel will continually experience, which we will all continually experience, until the rescue of the one Anointed Judge who is given the Spirit without measure.  Othniel, the lion of God, the lion of Judah (for he hails from the tribe of Judah) comes as the first judge from the generation who has witnessed God’s miracles as Caleb’s younger brother, and is a rarity amongst the other Israelites who have not witnessed war.  He very much represents our Christ who understood the depravity of heresy, who foreknew the fall of Adam before he was made the steward of the garden in Eden, and who with the Spirit would rush into the world fully equipped to fulfil his given ministry.  As the True Lion of Judah, he would destroy the real father of Cushan-rishathaim, the real ‘double-wickedness’, the real ‘blackness’ who had enslaved Israel for eight years.  This is a number which E.W. Bullinger describes in Christian numerology as representing resurrection and regeneration, the true purpose behind circumcision behind performed on the eighth day (Genesis 17:2) because Christ was resurrected on the eighth day (the first day of the new week).  So here, Othniel the typological lion of Judah upon his resurrection, being filled with the Spirit defeats the true darkness, the true Satan.

Though these 8 years proved to be a time of trial (whereupon in its fullness of time Othniel came to rescue), the next forty years symbolically represents a period of probation (as similar to Israel in the wilderness, c.f. Deuteronomy 8:2-5; Psalm 95:10).  However, like the deaths of the earlier saints (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Miriam, Joshua), the people returned to their idolatry.  This intermission whereupon they had no symbolic ‘pope’ to represent them described very clearly their state of faith (or lack thereof) in Christ; and yet, ironically, that is the thrust of these stories in Judges.  The portrayal of idolatry upon the death of the judge is meant to enforce the utterly important significance of a judge, mediator, king, LORD, high priest who is eternally interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:34), a Saviour who has not only defeated death which these judges could not defeat (thus bringing the Israelites beyond the forty year probation into the eternal jubilee), but a Saviour who lives on as our true Head.  Their trust in a Spirit-filled man will result in inevitable failures, for these Spirit-filled men are but Christians; but if Othniel experienced the indwelling and baptism of the Spirit prior to Christ’s incarnation, then also everyone else had the privilege to be like them and by the Spirit prevent such widespread heresies and idolatries in Israel.  Like Moses’ call for them to be near to the mountain of God, they were instead too afraid and trembled, standing far off (Exodus 20:18).  Moses was never intended to be the true Redeemer – and neither is Othniel, for they both saw that they had these strengths and performed such miracles for they are only emulating their true Mediator who also depended on the Spirit to perform such amazing feats, without measure.

Ehud

^12(O) And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD strengthened Eglon^(P) the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of the LORD. ¹³He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the^(Q) Amalekites, and went and defeated Israel. And they took possession of^(R) the city of palms. ¹⁴And the people of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.

We now turn to an episode concerning Ehud the judge who assassinated Eglon, the king of Moab, after serving him for eighteen years.  The narrative is silent on the justification for such a murder, for such a blatant disregard for the Ten Words, but we will return to this issue of graphic violence by the end of the chapter. Meanwhile, we are to understand that the captivity of eighteen years is a direct result of Israel’s idolatry, hence the LORD mobilised Eglon against the Israelites in order that they may be further strengthened in faith in Christ.  How often do we attribute evils today as a positive influence from Yahweh, rather than a punishment without meaning?  How often do we conceive of God as emptying us of our pride when He can only act out of love for He is the very being of love in communion, in Trinity (c.f. John 17; 1 John 4-5)?

This humiliation of Israel is further enhanced by the understanding of the name of Eglon to be that of a little-calf, and that this little-calf had taken the city of palm (trees – as in the KJV and Hebrew) (v.13), the palm tree representing victory of new creation (1 Kings 6-7; Psalm 92:12; Ezekiel 40-41; John 12:13).  The imagery here should therefore not be lost on the Israelite who meditates on this story, knowing fully that we are to recognise here that Eglon has essentially taken new creation under captivity, though he be an enemy to be ridiculed in the face of a judge who would stand up for Israel.  For a full eighteen years no-one had taken on the calling to be anointed by the Spirit in destroying the enemy, and it begs to wonder where Israel’s true allegiance lies as it proves itself as once again a nation which had forgotten the saving works of Christ.

¹⁵Then the people of Israel^(S) cried out to the LORD, and the LORD raised up for them^(T) a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. ¹⁶And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit^[a] in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.

Left Hand

Literally speaking according to the Hebrew, Ehud is a man with an impeded right hand, and thus the translation states that he is left-handed by implication.  Adam Clarke looks at the LXX translations for the same verse (v.15):

“The Septuagint render it ανδρα αμφοτεροδεξιον, an ambidexter, a man who could use both hands alike. The Vulgate, qui utraque manu pro dextera utebatur, a man who could use either hand as a right hand, or to whom right and left were equally ready. This is not the sense of the original, but it is the sense in which most interpreters understand it. It is well known that to be an ambidexter was in high repute among the ancients…

…In Jdg_20:16 of this book we have an account of seven hundred men of Benjamin, each of whom was אטר יד ימינו  itter yad yemino, lame of his right hand, and yet slinging stones to a hair’s breadth without missing: these are generally thought to be ambidexters.”

What is interesting is that in Judges 20:16, the chosen 700 left-handed men were also from the tribe of Benjamin.  Is there any reason to focus more on them having an ‘impeded right hand’ compared to the LXX reading of them being ambidextrous?

In Genesis 48:13 we see that the blessings are symbolized through the right hand (by implication, the son under the left hand is ‘inferior’); in Exodus 15:6, we see the power of Yahweh’s right hand representing Christ at His right hand; and in Leviticus 8:23 we see the blood of the sacrifice being smeared onto the right ear, right hand and right foot of the High Priest. It is thus clear that the right hand implies legitimated power.  Only in Leviticus 14 do we see a lengthened focus on the movements of the right and left hands, the left being the palm covered in oil, and the right being the one which takes the oil from the left hand.

What is interesting is how the High Priest is a representation of many things – the simplest of these representations being Christ the High Priest.  As it is with Christ in Whom meet the Father, the right hand and the left hand can possibly be attributed to (equally) the analogy of the left and right hand of the Father.  From Leviticus 14 and from Exodus 15, it would seem that the right hand smeared with blood and oil is representative of Christ at the right hand of the Father in the typological High Priest; and the left hand covered in oil is representative of the Spirit Who both the Father and the Son depends on for their magnificent work of recapitulation (in Irenaeus’ use of the term) and new creation.

If we were therefore to understand this, then perhaps this could be connected with the focus on the left hand for the tribe of Benjamin – to exemplify their total reliance on the Spirit – these one-handed people from the youngest tribe of the 12 tribes, weakest of the weak both physically and in familial status, yet they are brought to glory by the gifting of the Spirit in these wars.

The Word of God – A double-edged sword/dagger

¹⁷And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. ¹⁸And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute. ¹⁹But he himself turned back^(U) at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence. ²⁰And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his^(V) cool roof chamber.^(W) And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. ²¹And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. ²²And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out. ²³Then Ehud went out into the porch^[b] and closed the doors of the roof chamber behind him^(X) and locked them.

What is interesting is that there is an implied exposition of this passage in Hebrews 4:12, where the Word of God is referred to as a ‘two-edged sword’ (c.f. Mike Reeves in his “Word of God” series part 1).  If we were to follow the truth of which this story of Ehud is revealing to the crowd who is engaging with the Word, then we’ll find that the literal understanding is Ehud (the name meaning “united”), with the power of the Spirit Who unites the Church, is directly attacking Eglon the head of all idols in Gilgal by the Word of God like a double-edged sword until Eglon is revealed for what he is full of: dung (v.22).

So also the Word of God in our lives should have similar effect when we are embalmed and indwelled with the Spirit to perform similar ministries in spiritual warfare, and know that by the Spirit the Word of God pierces through our enemies and reveals them for what they are (c.f. Mark 5:6-9): lies, deceit, literally dung in the eyes of our LORD.

²⁴When he had gone, the servants came, and when they saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked, they thought,^(Y) “Surely he is relieving himself in the closet of the cool chamber.” ²⁵And they waited till they were embarrassed. But when he still did not open the doors of the roof chamber, they took the key and opened them, and there lay their lord dead on the floor.

²⁶Ehud escaped while they delayed, and he passed beyond^(Z) the idols and escaped to Seirah. ²⁷When he arrived,^(AA) he sounded the trumpet in^(AB) the hill country of Ephraim. Then the people of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he was their leader. ²⁸And he said to them, “Follow after me,^(AC) for the LORD has given your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him and seized^(AD) the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites and did not allow anyone to pass over. ²⁹And they killed at that time about 10,000 of the Moabites, all strong, able-bodied men; not a man escaped. ³⁰So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel.^(AE) And the land had rest for eighty years.

Given the graphic imagery of the Word of God, inspired by the Spirit, both penetrating the heart of idolatry which is the head of the Moabites, soon thereafter the Moabites were massacred.  Similarly, when Satan was defeated after the victorious work of the cross of Christ, his prophesied condemnation from Genesis 3 has finally come to fruition, and the Christians throughout all the ages need only preach the same thing that Ehud has preached:  “Follow after me, for the LORD has given your enemies… into your hand”.  Indeed, if only we really believe that victory is already ours, waiting to be realised on the Resurrection Day, the Spirit given as a deposit that the full materialisation of this victory if imminent.  Only then will our ministries be as effective as Ehud, as glorious, as violent but as successful that all the enemies of God, the rebellious unbelievers and the rebellious angels shall all fall at our acknowledgment of the victory won by the initial announcement of the trumpet (v.27).  Hence, twofold forty years is the reward (v.11), though again we should be reminded that these rests are temporary, however many decades or hundreds of years they last, for the enemy is still prowling the land waiting to devour the Christian  (1 Peter 5:8).

Shamgar

³¹After him was^(AF) Shamgar the son of Anath, who killed 600 of the Philistines^(AG) with an oxgoad, and he also^(AH) saved Israel.

The key words in these verses are: “also saved”.  The only judge in the book to not have an introduction or conclusion of sorts, Shamgar’s actions are surrounded with mystery – however, what we do know is that his acts can be attributed to Ehud’s act of salvation – for what Shamgar did was seen also as an act of salvation for Israel.  Perhaps the lesson taught in the last part of chapter 3 is the bloody nature of salvation; the placing of Shamgar the killer of 600 Philistines with an oxgoad, a violent ancient weapon, alongside Ehud the assassin of Eglon and leading to the massacre of the Moabites.

Though most possibly multi-faceted in meaning, we surely must not forget the context of Judges 3.  We must remember that Israel has been idolatrous, whoring herself after the Baalim.  This is a result of the compromises they had made by the end of the book of Joshua for failing to politically, spiritually and geographically displace the foreigners, and instead made truces and made them slaves without also destroying their idols.  As such, the violent imagery of chapter 3 is very suitable in our understanding of hell today – a topic much neglected.

John 3:16-18 is a helpful passage, unfortunately commonly short-quoted for its focus on v.16 rather than v.17-18, whereupon the latter verses describe how man is already condemned through Adam’s disobedience.  Similarly, the neighbours of Israel in Canaan are thriving in the vine of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the seed of Adam rather than living as newborn of God through Christ’s work.  There is thus an immediate urgency for Israel to fulfill their calling as light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6), which they have spectacularly failed to do, and furthermore failed to discern truly (Proverbs 14:8; Isaiah 44:18).  What Shamgar and Ehud has effectively done is display the reality of spiritual warfare once again, a type and shadow of the spiritual and physical warfare of the Resurrection Day when the neighbouring unsaved nations will be absolutely destroyed.  As Israel was intended to be a national typological model of New Creation, it is only fitting that Shamgar and Ehud are placed side by side to display the destructive but necessary nature of the just God and the just Christ, both Father and Son by the power of the Spirit disposing all opposition into the lake of fire.  It is from His wrath that we should fear, and yet in chapter 3 we see Israel, Moab and the Philistines all failing to understand the extent of God’s wrath, as displayed through the judges.

It is therefore important that through Ehud and Shamgar, both representing the sword of the Word of God by the inspiration and power of the Spirit (for the name Shamgar in Hebrew means ‘sword’), we need to understand judgment as synonymous to salvation; hell synonymous to new creation – both from the angle that one cannot exist without the other, for if there are saved then there are those who are not saved and remain condemned.  Yet Israel seemed to have forgotten the wrath of God, the depth of their sin, and lived lives of post-modernity, where everyone did as they pleased and worshipped whomever they pleased and had sexual relations with whatever they pleased.  God’s anger at the sin and the sinner should shake us into awesome fear, for his anger is so great as to pour it all upon His beloved firstborn Son Jesus Christ.  To deny His wrath is to deny the work of the cross – and that is the sin which Israel was saved from; that is the type of salvation offered to them, through the medium of understanding why God’s wrath had to be shown in such a violent, bloody and graphic form as in Judges 3, for our Christ was bloodied and died a violent, torturous and gruesome death both spiritually and physically.

Judges 4:  The Spirit anointing the Bride

Deborah and Barak

^1(AI) And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD after Ehud died. ²And the LORD^(AJ) sold them into the hand of^(AK) Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in^(AL) Hazor. The commander of his army was^(AM) Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. ³Then the people of Israel^(AN) cried out to the LORD for help, for he had^(AO) 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.

Matthew Henry describes eloquently the state of Israel after being in peace for eighty years:

“…The common ill effects of a long peace. The land had rest eighty years, which should have confirmed them in their religion; but, on the contrary, it made them secure and wanton, and indulgent of those lusts which the worship of the false gods was calculated for the gratification of. Thus the prosperity of fools destroys them. Jeshurun waxeth fat and kicketh…The great loss which a people sustains by the death of good governors. The did evil, because Ehud was dead. So it may be read. He kept a strict eye upon them, restrained and punished every thing that looked towards idolatry, and kept them close to God’s service. But, when he was gone, they revolted, fearing him more than God.”

Now, peace is not so much the issue than that of the Israelites becoming easily sluggish and complacent.  Though New Creation is a place of complete peace, of everlasting Jubilee and Sabbath, it is where we inherit renewed flesh and live lives of purity surrounding the light of the Lamb.  Yet, Israel is but a shadow; a type; and like Adam who is but a type of Christ the true image in Whom Adam was made, Adam is thus but an innocent infant making his infancy more concretised by disobeying God and eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil (c.f. Irenaeus in his “Against Heresies”).  So we also see Israel restored to ‘innocence’ again and again, typologically replaying that story of the fall whenever they chose to follow other idols again, unsurprising for we are all descendants of Adam by nature and can only escape that nature by having redeemed spirit and flesh in Christ the true image of the Father (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1).

⁴Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. ⁵She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in^(AP) the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. ⁶She sent and summoned^(AQ) Barak the son of Abinoam from^(AR) Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount^(AS) Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. ⁷And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by^(AT) the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops,^(AU) and I will give him into your hand’?” ⁸Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” ⁹And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will^(AV) sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. ¹⁰And Barak called out^(AW) Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. And 10,000 men went up at his heels, and Deborah went up with him.

Now, Deborah, the first female judge, was sitting between Ramah (hill) and Bethel (the House of God) in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment (v.5).  Where she sat is of importance, for we understand that only Christ can ascend the holy hill (Deuteronomy 30:12; Psalm 24:3), and thus Deborah fulfils her typology by sitting on the very area between the hill and the House of God, the true tabernacle in heaven, for Christ bridges that path for us as well.  This imagery does not stop here for she also sits under the palm tree of Deborah (presumably named after her), in harmony with the understanding of ‘palm trees’ from our scrutiny of Judges 3 for the city of palms.

It is undoubted that Deborah here also relies on the Spirit of the Father and Christ to give the instructions between v.6-9 – from the choice of Barak (called “lightning/lightning flash”) to the particular locations like Mount Tabor (“broken region”), and river Kishon (“winding”, presumably a winding river).  From the wisdom of Issachar’s geography, it would seem the named terrain is of great difficulty for Sisera’s chariots.  For Israel to pursue such wisdom and advice from a weaker vessel, from a woman, is to focus on the greatness of the Spirit working through Deborah, so much that Barak – supposedly a fierce army leader given a name of such power, voluntarily submits himself not to Deborah as v.8 suggests, but to the Wisdom on Whom she relies on.  Adam Clarke notes this, as well as points out an interesting addition to the LXX of the same verse:

“The Septuagint made a remarkable addition to the speech of Barak: “If thou wilt go with me I will go; but if thou wilt not go with me, I will not go; Ὁτι ουκ οιδα την ἡμεραν εν ῃ ευοδοι Κυριος τον αγγελον μετ’ εμου, because I know not the day in which the Lord will send his angel to give me success.” By which he appears to mean, that although he was certain of a Divine call to this work, yet, as he knew not the time in which it would be proper for him to make the attack, he wishes that Deborah, on whom the Divine Spirit constantly rested, would accompany him to let him know when to strike that blow, which he knew would be decisive. This was quite natural, and quite reasonable, and is no impeachment whatever of Barak’s faith. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine have the same reading; but it is found in no MS. nor in any other of the versions.”

If the LXX addition is another Christological focus of Barak’s faith and reliance, then this chapter teaches us firmly that whether the judge be male or female, the true justice comes through the Spirit of God.  Despite the might of Ehud and Shamgar in the previous chapter, their might can be equally shown through Deborah and the woman who is prophesied to destroy Sisera (v.9).  Thus chapter 4 humbles the inner chauvinist, for we must remember that the gospel means equality for all (Galatians 3:28), though certain gender roles must be performed (Ephesians 5 and 6) to display this very gospel which gives inherited glory to all equally.

¹¹Now Heber^(AX) the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of^(AY) Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in^(AZ) Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh.

This theme of God using women is continued even in v.11.  We see here Heber, the husband of the prophesied woman Jael who is to be glorified by her foreseen act upon Sisera.  Heber is not someone to praise – he severed himself from Reuel, Jethro, Hobab – the father of Moses who introduced Moses to the Christian faith.  It is therefore clear that Heber is anything but a follower of Yahweh (v.17); yet Jael, the submissive wife, still holds true to the original faith of their forefather Hobab.  This will become clear in later verses.

¹²When Sisera was told that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, ¹³Sisera called out all his chariots,^(BA) 900 chariots of iron, and all the men who were with him, from Harosheth-hagoyim to the river Kishon. ¹⁴And Deborah said to Barak, “Up! For this is the day in which^(BB) the LORD has given Sisera into your hand.^(BC) Does not the LORD go out before you?” So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with 10,000 men following him. ^15(BD) And the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army before Barak by the edge of the sword. And Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot. ¹⁶And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.

So it is also important to see that Deborah does not commit violence herself; she leaves the work to Barak.  In many ways, this is a reflection of the story of Moses and Joshua – Moses spreading his arms into the shape of the cross (as according to Justin Martyr’s exposition of Exodus), and Deborah being the type of Christ on the holy hill sitting under the tree of peace; whereas Barak and Joshua are both doing the work of God by relying on the arm of the judge, the prophet.  Where Moses is weak as an old man, so also Deborah is a woman – and the strength of God comes through the men.  This should reveal much about warfare being led primarily by men, though support can come from weaker vessels, the wiser older men, and women who are similarly reliant on the Spirit.

¹⁷But Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. ¹⁸And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. ¹⁹And he said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened^(BE) a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. ²⁰And he said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’” ²¹But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died. ²²And behold, as Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he went in to her tent, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg in his temple.

So chapter 4 ends on the initiative and support of women – and that rightfully they deserve the glory for relying on the Spirit.  So Jael is seen as the church in Revelation, using the tent peg who is Christ (Zechariah 10:4), nailing it straight into the head of Satan the father of all enemies with the help of the hammer (Jeremiah 51:20), with the help of God in destroying he who does not belong to the tent, the household of God (Hebrews 8:5; Revelation 15:5; Isaiah 54:2) – and so the ejecting of Sisera is violently accomplished as Satan is equally displaced from the world which he deserves not to inherit, but only the meek and humble – the Christians.

^23(BF) So on that day God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan before the people of Israel. ²⁴And the hand of the people of Israel pressed harder and harder against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

And so, in Judges 5 we will see a full exposition in poetic form of the events of chapter 4.

Daniel Lieuwen has written an interesting article entitled “Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon”.

The LXX is based on a very different text of the Old Testament from the Masoretic text, on which modern English translations are based. For instance, in many places the wording is quite different, and the content of the books also differs—generally the LXX text is longer, but there are also interesting additions to the Masoretic text that are not found in the LXX. The text on which the LXX is based is as ancient as the Masoretic text, as testified by the Dead Sea scrolls and many other ancient witnesses.

In Iesirea [Exod] 34:29 , cand Moise coboara de pe munte cu cele doua table ale Legii, nu stia, spune LXX, “ca fata sa devenise luminoasa” (dedoxastai). Verbul ebraic qaran inseamna de fapt “a fi stralucitor” insa consoanele qrn formeaza si numele qeren, care inseamna un “corn”: este alegerea pe care o face Aquila, conform unei traditii iudaice (L Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphie,1909-1946, t. VI, p. 61) urmat de Ieronim (cornuta erat species vulturus eius), ceea ce explica faptul ca Moise al lui Michelangelo are coarne: LXX nu este responsabila de aceasta!

“Septuaginta – De la iudaismul elenistic la crestinismul vechi ” , p. 320

O mostra de cum traducerea gresita a unei secvente consonantice ebraice poate inzestra cu coarne un profet… In loc de fata luminoasa pomenita si de Pavel, Moise “se trezeste” cu…coarne! De ce ? Pentru ca niste traducatori faimosi totusi – precum Aquila si Ieronim – citesc eronat pe baza traditiei un text biblic.

Si daca un artist de talia lui Michelangelo ia de buna eroarea “sacra”, putem avea in patrimoniul cultural si un “Moise cu coarne” in loc de un Moise cu fata stralucitoare foarte…

Ce putem invata de aici:

- pentru unii fata “incarcata de slava” pana la insuportabil poate sa ajunga … cu coarne; conteaza slava si nu pseudo-coarnele puse de unii si altii…

- omul e om, chiar si expert; si specialistul poate gresi; nu-i intelept sa-i contestezi pregatirea si competentele, dar nici nu-l fa infailibil, ca nu-i

- cand dai in Biblie de “coarne” aiurea, ar fi bine sa mai studiezi pana “ele” se “evapora” odata cu descoperirea celor ce le-au “fabricat” ; si daca intarzie evaporarea nu dispera… asteapta.

I am pleased to announce the paper I will be presenting at the upcoming British NT conference (Aberdeen, Sept 3-5, 2009).  The paper will be in the ‘Simultaneous Short Papers’ section, which is sort of a grab-bag group which anyone can attend.  I did this two years ago and it was well attended and a lot of fun.

Here is the abstract:

What ‘mercies of God’?  oiktirmos in the LXX as the context and background for Paul’s programmatic use in Romans 12.1

In what is considered to be a climactic point in Romans, 12.1-2, Paul makes a firm appeal to the Roman in view of ‘the mercies of God’.  It is the conclusion of many scholars that either Paul is using oiktirmos to refer to the argument of Romans 9-11 or, perhaps, to summarize chapters 1-11 as a whole.  Though the term is undoubtedly acting to refer back to Paul’s argument in the preceding material, there is a pattern of the usage of oiktirmos (and its cognates) in the LXX that has not been introduced into the scholarly discussion.  We will examine the patterned uses of an oiktirmos motif in the LXX with a view towards how and why it appears as well as what other concepts are frequently and naturally correlated.  Then we will demonstrate how suitable this particular term was for summarizing the message of Romans (and Paul’s gospel) as the foundation for the command par excellence that follows in the rest of 12.1-2.  In particular we will observe how oiktirmos appears in the discussion of God’s covenant faithfulness with a view towards eschatology, revelation, guidance, and deliverance.

It was interesting to me that commentators generally ignored the LXX and Jewish background of this very important word group (oiktir*).  The conclusions I will reach are probably not too shocking, but there are a couple of interesting patterns and developments that are more significant.  The paper I presented two years ago eventually was published in Neotestamentica.  I hope to do the same with this one, but the journal is yet to be decided.