Rearranging the Furniture
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me;’” Hebrews 10:5 NASB
Body – New Testament authors often rearrange God’s word from the Tanakh in order to make some point in their own writings. Sometimes they offer rather creative translations (see, for example, my discussion of the many examples in Matthew). Sometimes they combine diverse texts in order to make a new concept (even Yeshua does this). And sometimes they change the words entirely. Such is the case with this verse. The citation is from Psalm 40:6, but the Hebrew doesn’t use the word “body” at all. In fact, not even the standard LXX text has soma instead of otia (ears). Guthrie remarks, “Although it is true that LXX B S A have soma, these probably should be read as corrections by scribes wishing to bring the manuscripts in line with Hebrews’ quotation.”[1] In other words, the author of Hebrews altered the verse in the Tanakh by changing “ears” to “body” and subsequent Christian copyists of the LXX changed the LXX to match the letter to the Hebrews. The verse in Psalms clearly does not use “body.” Hebrews changes the verse to fit the argument (and this is only one of four changes in this short sequences of citations).
Does this concern you? If you believe that the New Testament is inspired by the same God, and that it is an accurate record of God’s infallible and inerrant truth, then this presents a real problem. How can the author of Hebrews play fast and loose with the Tanakh and claim that he is citing holy Scripture? If he can do this here, how do we know any of the rest of it isn’t also whatever he made up along the way? How can we claim that God’s truth is one if the authors of the Bible freely change the words whenever they wish? These are not trivial questions. They shake the foundation of our faith in the text.
What we must realize, and come to terms with, is that the authors of the New Testament documents treat the Tanakh as Jews, not Greeks. In our world, the Greek world, word-for-word accuracy is the definition of “citation.” When we say, “This is what the Bible says,” we can’t imagine that we can freely change the words. Accuracy means getting the words right. But in Jewish thought, citation is the invitation to meaning, not words. So Jewish use of the Tanakh is open to explanations of additional meanings. It is not limited to exactly the same words. The author of Hebrews is no different than Paul or Matthew or John. He simply changes the words of the Tanakh in order to reveal another meaning of his reading of the text. That does not mean that the Hebrew word ozen (ear) can also mean soma (body). What it means is that the author of Hebrews saw in this verse in the Psalms a connection to another idea, and he simply incorporated that idea into the verse in Psalms. His view of inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy is radically different than ours. The author of Hebrews has a revelation. The verse in Psalms can be used to speak about the preparation of the Son as the acceptable sacrifice for sin. So he just rearranges the furniture to show that. No big deal. He is providing a midrash on the text. The reason he doesn’t have to tell us that it is a midrash is because everyone knew what he was doing from a Jewish perspective. Only Greeks find this suspect.
What does this mean for us? Well, first it tells us that the meaning of Psalm 40:6 does not change. It still isn’t about Yeshua’s body. But the author of Hebrews wants us to see Psalm 40:6 in a different way. For him, it is about the Messiah and the sacrifice – the one true sacrifice that makes all other sin offerings pale by comparison. So when you read Hebrews, remember what is happening. You are reading interpretations of the Tanakh and you need to have a Hebrew mind to understand them.
Topical Index: body, soma, ear, ozen, otia, midrash, Hebrews 10:5, Psalm 40:6
[1] George Guthrie, “Hebrews” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds. Beale and Carson), p. 977.
” You are reading interpretations of the Tanakh and you need to have a Hebrew mind to understand them.” The verses are interpretations and midrash! So interesting.
I have not thought of it this way.
And will make understanding Hebrews easier.
Don’t think anyone else have shared this understanding the way you did, anywhere, Skip.
For me it’s the first time I see it in this light.
Thank you for bringing this forth.
P/S I love re-arranging furniture all the time, so it’s refreshing! 🙂
I too enjoy rearranging furniture. The pieces are all still there, it just looks different!
I have a friend who struggles with the idea of Y-H never changing. Things like the allowing of divorce and Y-H relenting from killing the people because Moses interceded for them. By definition, this is a change to my friend and it makes him wonder why he reads scripture at all since obviously (to him) Y-H changed.
Here is what I tell him, Y-H’s purposes have never changed. He makes allowances for an imperfect people.
The idea of midrash is something (I think) very important to understand and to allow for as you read scripture. It is VERY Hebrew and since the book was written by Hebrews, we need to grasp.
Really helpful teaching today and so timely for me. Thanks Skip and I hope your travels are going well.
Hi Skip,
I am a regular reader of TW but seldom respond in the comments section. The reason is simply I usually understand the point and meaning of what you are trying to get across. I may or may not agree, but what it does is bring me to Scripture to see for myself what is being said, which to me is always a good thing. With that being said, I find myself unclear on what you are trying to get across through the TW.
Are you in agreement and advocating what the NT authors did, or are you proposing that they should have remained true to the Hebrew text? Or are you simply stating that is what the did?
To understand why I am asking this brings me to yesterday post.
You posted today,
“When we say, “This is what the Bible says,” we can’t imagine that we can freely change the words. Accuracy means getting the words right. But in Jewish thought, citation is the invitation to meaning, not words. So Jewish use of the Tanakh is open to explanations of additional meanings. It is not limited to exactly the same words.”
Yet yesterday you proposed the NIV (nearly inspired version) “cannot be trusted as an accurate, unbiased translation of the original text.” (I might also add here that I prefer the ESV or NASB) and yet to my understanding the translation of the NIV is a thought to thought rendering rather than a word to word translation.
Is that not what you said the Jewish writers did?
Is the claim then that the NT writers are “nearly inspired” also?
Great point. 1. I am simply saying that this is what the NT authors did. 2. That implies that our definition of inspiration and inerrancy is not in concert with the actual practice of the NT authors as long as we insist on a Greek view of accuracy. 3. The problem with the NIV is not that they don’t capture the idiomatic idea. The NIV is very good at this. The problem is that they add and subtract words with theological intent – and do not provide explanation. Jewish authors could do something similar with the NT text but their audiences clearly understood the changes because the audience was well-versed in the STANDARD OT text. But when an English translation add and removes words from the STANDARD text, the Tanakh, then they are doing quite a bit more than simply using the standard to show another meaning. They are changing the original WITHIN the original. No NT author does this.
Glad to have you commenting.
Pardon me for bothering you yet again today, but I’m as curious as a cat.
Do you accept Wescott and Hort or Textus Receptus?
Would you accept anything out of Alexandria (or Rome)?
What value do you give to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?
The Received Text is online, tho you likely have it on your shelf
https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus/greek_textus_receptus_index.htm
Dear Skip,
I have been trying to get added to your mailing list. Please add me. I have purchased the book Gaurdian Angel through Smashwords as a donation.
Thank you, Alex Newby
I will add you today. Busy right now, but just hold on.
Jim,
This is what the rabbis of old did and also the kabbalahists of old did…a common practice. If you have access to the Zohar read parts of it. There are parts where Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai and his followers met and walked at night to discuss Torah. As they had insights they linked scriptures with new thoughts and applications that brought new meaning. This deepened their understanding of the scriptures and their application to life that they got very excited about. And they believed their Torah study and discussion was for the sake of Heaven. They also believed Torah study elevates the soul. Now I don’t know how this relates to modern translations of the New Testament in which translators are translating from a predisposed viewpoint. Personally, I can see this as a very different practice/issue.
Darlene
“In our world, the Greek world, word-for-word accuracy is the definition of “citation.”
Red-letter editions of the Gospels create the idea that when the writer says, “Jesus said, . . .” imply that what follows is a citation of the actual words of Jesus. This has created opportunities for unbelievers to say the Gospel records are inaccurate because one writer “disagrees” with another because the words are not exactly the same – citations.
When people read Acts 17 and Sha’uls response to the Greeks on Mars Hill, are the words recorded his exact speech on a single occasion, or a summary of his challenge to the Greeks over many occasions? It is hard to imagine that Sha’ul’s presentation of the Good News took such a brief amount of time, just a few minutes to say the “exact” words recorded in Acts. Of course, if they are the author’s representation of Sha’ul’s words, then we can expect that the “summary” provided by Luke was spoken to at great lengths by Sha’ul on multiple occasions as he addressed the Greek unbelievers.
Rather strange how the ability to print in color has changed our understanding of the Scriptures.
Skip,
“What we must realize, and come to terms with, is that the authors of the New Testament documents treat the Tanakh as Jews, not Greeks.”
I love this whole post! Ignorance in the difference of the Hebrew/Greek worldview and how they “handle” scripture causes so many problems. This is by far the best explanation I’ve ever read concerning this issue; in particularly with the many nuances in the Book of Hebrews. If we could just “get this” there would less controversy and more harmony in the body.
I’ve witnessed many people turn completely to the left or to the right based upon their “reading” of Hebrews and other N.T. books. They can’t seem to come to terms with how the N.T. writers thought, wrote, and lived. As you said, “They shake the foundation of our faith in the text.”
Some don’t handle “shaking” very well. Sadly, this is directly due to our very Greek mindset. Ironically, those returning to the Hebraic form of life and worship are often the worst culprits! How can this be? I am always perplexed by this when it rears its ugly head. Skip, we need more training in this area. I believe it would solve (actually dissolve) a multitude of issues in the Messianic arena.
Although many are returning to the Torah, we still carry a lot of baggage. And I think you’ve pointed out the root of the problem.