by CBTS Student | Nov 11, 2024 | New Testament
This is the second installation in the discussion around the Reformed view and use of the Greek Old Testament (GOT). In part one, I asserted that we cannot define one single Reformed view, but it is more of a spectrum, ranging from avoidance because of its corruption to willing use. This is in contrast to the Reformation Bible Society,[2] who has presented the Reformed view as homogenous,[3] stating that the GOT was only used for translation and vocabulary help, and we must follow suit. In this second part I want to present two different uses of the GOT in the Reformed literature. First, we will observe that the Reformed have seen the GOT as attesting to the veracity of the Hebrew and preserving the OT throughout the ages. Second, we will look at how quotations of the GOT in the NT have been dealt with by commentators, with an example from Hebrews 8:9.
The Preservation and Veracity of the Hebrew
Throughout the Reformed tradition several authors have pointed out that God has used the GOT in order to give a witness to the trustworthiness of the Hebrew OT. The great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564), mentions the GOT only one time in his Institutes. In book one, chapter 8, he addresses the credibility of the Scriptures and takes up the question of the books of Maccabees. These books, he says, are “fitted the best to confirm” the credibility of the Scriptures. He states that at the point of the exile, “The Hebrew language was in no estimation, and almost unknown; and assuredly, had not God provided for religion, it must have utterly perished. . . [the Jews] had lost the genuine use of their native tongue.”[4] According to Calvin, it is by the GOT that the Scriptures were spread out through the whole world, as a means for God to preserve His word.[5]
Francis Turretin (1623-1687), who was introduced in part one, likewise says that the GOT was used to preserve the Hebrew text of the Bible. He states, “What they [Roman Catholic Scholars] adduce to prove the authenticity of the Greek text. . . are still stronger proofs of the integrity of the Hebrew Codex—to which (other things being equal) the prerogative is not usually denied.”[6] Turretin is here responding to those who prefer the GOT over the Hebrew (which the Reformed always deny) yet confirms that the GOT indeed does provide a strong proof to the reliability of the Hebrew original.
Later in the tradition, Robert Haldane (1764-1842), Robert Shaw (1795-1863), and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) argue that the GOT offers a reinforcing witness to the canonical books of the OT. Haldane wrote a wonderful book on The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. In it he states that there is nothing more settled than the books of the Hebrew OT, and “We have the fullest evidence that it was fixed 280 years before the Christian era, when, as has been noticed, the Greek translation called the Septuagint, was executed at Alexandria, the books of which were the same as in our Bible. And as no authentic records of a more ancient date are extant, it is impossible to ascend higher in search of testimony.”[7] Shaw, who wrote a commentary on the Westminster confession of faith, commenting on chapter one paragraph eight writes, “The purity of the Old Testament Scriptures is confirmed by the general coincidence of the present Hebrew copies with all the early translations, and particularly with the Septuagint version.”[8] Finally, Herman Bavinck states simply that, “The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves witness to the authority of the canonical books.”[9]
What can be learned from this string of quotes? First, these men clearly believe that the Hebrew text of the Bible has been preserved, and that the GOT is able to bear witness to the integrity and authority of those books. Second, the GOT was used by God at a time when the Hebrew language had fallen out of use, and thus the OT was preserved through this ancient translation.
The Quotations of the Septuagint in the New Testament
The place that Christians are most aware of the GOT is where it is quoted in the NT, especially when the quotation varies from the Hebrew. In this portion I want to deal first with the nature of OT quotations, according to the Reformed writers. Finally, I would like to look at Hebrews 8:9 as an example of the range of responses to the deviations from the Hebrew by Reformed commentators.
The Nature of Old Testament Quotes
William Ross is right when he says that “the New Testament authors’ use of the GOT—even citing it as ‘Scripture’—warrants serious reflection. The GOT was (with caveats) a “pew Bible” of the apostolic church.”[10] Reformed theologians and commentators have recognized this. However, our tradition has been careful to say that the Greek translation can be quoted authoritatively and yet be subordinate to the Hebrew. Again, Turretin says that “The quotations in the New Testament from the Septuagint are not authentic per se. . . but per accidens inasmuch as they were drawn into the sacred context by the evangelists under the influence of the Holy Spirit.” These quotations of the GOT are therefore authentic and authoritative only because the Holy Spirit has “consecrated them” in Holy Scripture. This does not imply that the entire GOT as a translation is meant to be our final authority.[11]
Nevertheless, Bavinck recognizes that the NT authors frequently quote the GOT. In his Reformed Dogmatics he writes, “Notwithstanding all this, the OT is consistently quoted in the NT in the Greek translation of the LXX. The writers of the NT, writing in Greek and for Greek readers, commonly used the translation that was known and accessible to them.”[12] Bavinck goes on to offer three categories of quotations—those that deviate from the GOT to the Hebrew; those that agree with the GOT and depart from the Hebrew; and those that do not seem to match either.[13]
Reactions to Departures from the Hebrew Text
In this section of the essay, I want to focus on three different reactions from Reformed commentators to the places in the NT quotes which deviate to the GOT and away from the Hebrew. I have chosen Hebrew 8:9, because it evokes three different explanations from John Calvin (1509-1564), John Owen (1616-1683), and John Brown of Edinburgh (1784-1858). I will take these authors from newest to oldest.
The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 [38:31-34 GOT] in Heb. 8:8-12. It is the longest OT quotation in the NT. The quotation is almost exactly what is found in the GOT, with few exceptions.[14] The major deviation is found at verse 9, which reads, “for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them (ἠμέλησα [גּעַלְתִי]), declares the LORD” (Heb. 8:9 ESV). The Hebrew text of Jeremiah however reads, “my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband (בָּעַלְתִּי), declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:32 ESV). The difference can be attributed to one Hebrew letter (beth/gimmel; ג/ב). How should we view this difference? Let us hear the answer of each commentator.
John Brown resolves this problem in two ways. First, he does not believe that the Apostle is quoting from either Hebrew or Greek, but from memory, being prevented from any mistake or misrepresentation of the original meaning.[15] Second, he contends that the issue is not actually with the Greek quotation, but simply with the English translation. He thinks that the English versions use a common translation in Jeremiah, but we should learn from the Apostle that Jeremiah uses a “less common meaning.”[16] Therefore, John Brown does not think that there is any difference, but the Hebrew can be translated as the Apostle quotes it.[17]
John Owen, in his masterful seven volume Exposition of Hebrews, gives a large amount of attention to issues concerning the GOT. Owen denies that this is a quotation out of the GOT at all. He states that commentators make the problem more complicated for themselves than is necessary. According to him, the writer is quoting from his own translation. He says that “Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX. . . He expressed the mind of the Scripture as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own.”[18] Any agreement, he says, with the GOT is simply a coincidence.[19] To Owen then, there is no real problem, he is far more concerned about the sense of the words and says that the translation should not be the focus.[20]
Finally, John Calvin recognizes the issue in his commentary on Hebrews and offers the solution in appendix E2. Calvin presents two possibilities—a typographical error in the Hebrew or an error in the Greek.[21] He sees the best solution to be a typographical error in the Hebrew, which ought to be solved by printing געלתי instead of the current בעלתי.[22] Calvin states that this is best represented by the versional witnesses of the OT and more consistent with the internal verbiage of Jeremiah. This is remarkably significant. Instead of attempting to harmonize (Brown), or deny (Owen) the issue, Calvin suggests a correction to the Hebrew text itself, on the basis of the New Testament quotation of the GOT.[23] He is not dogmatic about which solution is best, only laying out probabilities. He ends his discussion by saying, “but either of these suppositions would reconcile the passage; and it is singular that in both cases the change required is only one letter.”[24]
Conclusion
Bringing the discussion to a close, let us answer the question initially proposed: “how did the Reformed tradition use the GOT?” First, they used the GOT (and other ancient translations) as a way to reinforce the text of the Hebrew Bible. Second, the GOT is often quoted by the NT writers, and where it is quoted it is authoritative, but not on its own. Third, there was a range of ways that commentators have solved the differences in NT quotations with the OT. Brown attempted to harmonize the meaning, Owen denied the problem, and Calvin suggests an emendation to the Hebrew text. Let us remember then, that the GOT cannot be ignored but is useful to us in Bible translation, interpretation, and matters of text-criticism.
About the Author
Jared Ebert is married to Mykala, and is the father of Micah and Trinity. He received a BA in Pastoral Studies and Bible from Baptist Bible College, and a MDiv with an emphasis in Biblical Languages from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is now studying as a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, researching in New Testament supervised by Dr. Timothy Decker. He currently serves as the Senior Pastor at Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and as the Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations. He is the author of Reading for Joy: A Handbook for Bible Reading.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 1: Prolegoma. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Brown, John. Hebrews. A Geneva Series Commentary. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries. Edited by Henry Beveridge. Translated by James Anderson, Charles William Bingham, John King, Thomas Myers, John Owen, John Pringle, and William Pringle. 500th anniversary ed. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
______. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
______. Calvin’s Commentaries. Translated by Rev. John Owen. Vol. 22. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
Haldane, Robert. The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Eugene: WIPF & Stock, 2007.
Lane, William. Hebrews 1-8. Vol. 47a of WBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Owen, John. An Exposition of The Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991.
Ross, William A., and Gregory R. Lanier. The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2021.
Shaw, Robert. The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. West Linn: Monergism, 2023.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992.
[1] Jared Ebert is a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary working on his thesis in New Testament under Dr. Timothy Decker. He is a Husband and Father, the Senior Pastor at Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and a Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations.
[2] The views and lectures of the Reformation Bible Society can be found on their website here: https://www.reformationbiblesociety.org/2024-media/ [accessed Nov. 5, 2024]. Of particular interest to this article the plenary lectures will demonstrate the view of the whole symposium.
[3] In a recent two-and-a half-hour rejoinder, Dr. Jeff Riddle expanded from calling it the “Reformed view” to the “Protestant view” of the GOT. His claims can be heard here: https://youtu.be/yN7ugh3wO24?si=7XJgJK19am0LIwOV [accessed on Nov. 5, 2024]
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 1.8.10, pg. 41.
[5] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 41.
[6] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992), 130.
[7] Robert Haldane, The Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Eugene: WIPF & Stock, 2007), 34.
[8] Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (West Linn: Monergism, 2023), 59.
[9] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1: Prolegoma, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 394.
[10] William A. Ross and Gregory R. Lanier, The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 162.
[11] Remember that in our confession it explicitly states that it is, “The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” The final authority in all matters of religion therefore is the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.
[12] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1, 395.
[13] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 1, 396. Bavinck’s full quote and cited examples are given here:
- “Deviation from the LXX and agreement with the Hebrew text (Matt. 2:15, 18; 8:17; 12:18-21; 27:46; John 19:37; Rom. 10:15, 16; 11:9; 1 Cor. 3:19; 15:54)
- Conversely, in other texts there is agreement with the LXX and deviation from the Hebrew (Matt. 15:8, 9; Acts 7:14; 15:16, 17; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 10:5; 11:21; 12:6)
- In the third group of citations there is more or less significant deviation both from the LXX and Hebrew text (Matt. 2:6; 3:3; 26:31; John 12:15; 13:18; Rom. 10:6-9; 1 Cor. 2:9”
[14] “The prophetic word of censure and promise found in Jer 31 (LXX 38):31-34 is quoted in full in substantial agreement with the LXX text.” William Lane, Hebrews 1-8, vol. 47a of WBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 209.
[15] John Brown, Hebrews, A Geneva Series Commentary (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 371.
[16] Brown’s full quotation is as follows: “The true account of this variation seems to be this, that our translators have given to the word in Jeremiah its most ordinary signification; whereas it would appear, from the Apostle sanctioning the version of the LXX in this instance, that I ought to have been understood in a less common meaning.” Brown, Hebrews, 371.
[17] In order to substantiate his claims, Brown cites Gesenius’ lexicon, and says, “The LXX have here given a correct version, and the Apostle has adopted it.” Brown, Hebrews, 371n2.
[18] John Owen, An Exposition of The Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 130.
[19] Owen, The Works of John Owen, 130.
[20] The full quote reads, “The apostle neither in this nor in any other place doth bind up himself precisely unto the translation of the words, but infallibly gives us the sense and meaning; and so he hath done in this place.” Owen, The Works of John Owen, 130.
[21] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 22:386.
[22] The whole paragraph says, “Still the most probable and the easiest solution is to suppose a typographical mistake in Jer. xxxi. 32, the word בעלתי being used instead of בחלתי, there being only one letter different. The reasons for this supposition are these—all the versions are different here from what they are in Jer. iii. 4, where the same phrase is supposed to occur—and this latter verb is found in Zech. xi. 8, followed by ב as here, and means ‘to abhor,’ or according to some, ‘to reject.’ There is also another word, געלתי, which has been mentioned, and has but one letter different; and as it is used by Jeremiah himself in chap. xiv. 19, and with ב, in the sense of abhorring or loathing, it may justly be deemed as the most probable word.” Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386.
[23] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386. What is interesting is that Calvin does not actually adjust his text when he prints his commentary on Jeremiah. His translation remains, “et ego dominabor illis, dicit Jehova. . . although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.” Jean Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. Henry Beveridge, trans. James Anderson et al., 500th anniversary ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 10:124.
[24] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22:386.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Ben Carlson | Nov 4, 2024 | Systematic Theology
Which (Logically) Came First: Election or the Fall?
Within the Reformed tradition, there have been two acceptable ways to hold to unconditional election. One is the supralapsarian view and the other is the infralapsarian view. These views explain how God in eternity past logically (not chronologically) orders His decrees. Think of it as the logical steps in the eternal mind of God concerning His plan for the history of the world.
1.) Supralapsarianism
This word comes from two Latin words which mean “above/before the Fall”. It refers to God decreeing election and reprobation before or logically prior to decreeing creation and the Fall. This view extols the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation and emphasizes the glory of God as the ultimate goal of election and reprobation. Herman Bavinck states, “. . . The two decrees of election and reprobation are to be viewed as acts of divine sovereignty prior to those concerning the fall, sin, and redemption in Christ.” [1] So, God, for His own glory, first decreed to choose a portion of humanity to be His people, and then decreed that this would come to pass through the Fall, sin, and salvation in Christ.
2.) Infralapsarianism
This word comes from two Latin words which mean “below/after the Fall”. In this scheme, God decreed election and reprobation after or logically subsequent to decreeing creation and the Fall. Herman Bavinck says of infralapsarianism, “Election and reprobation, presuppose a fallen human race, or as Augustine calls it, ‘corrupt mass’.”[2] This view affirms God’s sovereignty but emphasizes God’s grace in election and God’s justice in reprobation. Since the Fall logically precedes election, when God elects a certain people to salvation, He does so out of the fallen mass of sinful humanity. Therefore, the elect are graciously chosen by God to salvation while the reprobate are simply passed over by God and remain in a state of condemnation for their own sin.
A Graph of the Two Views[3]
What view is best?
I believe both views should hold a place in Reformed theology because both teach that God decreed to unconditionally elect and redeem a particular people for Himself before the foundation of the world. I also believe both views contain weaknesses and inadequacies.[4] But I lean more towards the infralapsarian position, as do the Reformed confessions, most importantly The Canons of Dort.[5]
Although supralapsarians were present at the Synod of Dort, its canons present the infralapsarian view. Bavinck acknowledges this: “. . . though it did not condemn supralapsarianism, the Synod of Dort’s judgments were infralapsarian in character”.[6]
Below are several statements from The Canons of Dort in “The First Head of Doctrine on Divine Predestination” which teach that God’s election and reprobation of certain individuals occurred in light of the Fall into sin. In other words, God elected not just creatures but sinful, fallen creatures in Adam who deserved the eternal death penalty for their sins.
Article 6: “According to which decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men, equally involved in ruin”.
Article 7: “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him”.
Article 10: “but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself,”.
Article 15: “What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election, is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves,”.
To sum up these articles, in the decree of election, God looks upon “the whole [fallen] human race” suffering from “one common misery” or “the common misery” who are “equally involved in ruin” and makes His choice from “the common mass of sinners”.
These statements better align with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism, and I believe they more clearly reflect the biblical teaching on election. But in the end, let us humbly confess, “Who has known the mind of the Lord”? (Romans 9:34), and let us fall on our faces and rejoice that “The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of [our] gracious election”![7]
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, 364.
[2] Ibid., 337.
[3] Based on B.B. Warfield’s chart on the order of God’s decrees.
[4] You can read about them in Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (pp. 388-392) or in John Frame’s The Doctrine of God (pp. 337-339).
[5] The Five Points of Calvinism come from The Canons of Dort (or The Five Articles Against the Remonstrants).
[6] Ibid, 338.
[7] The Canons of Dort, “The First Head of Doctrine on Divine Predestination”, Article 10.
Ben has been one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, since June 2017. In February 2018, he received his Master of Divinity from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben has been married to his lovely wife Ali since September 2011. They have four children together: Liam, Luther, Cosette, and Maezie. In his spare time, Ben enjoys playing with his kids, coaching, doing yard work, and Friday family nights.
by CBTS Student | Nov 4, 2024 | New Testament, Old Testament
Editors Note: This is the first of two installments of Jared Ebert’s “The Reformed Use of the Septuagint.” For part 2, click here.
Recently, a group of pastors and scholars gathered together at an academic symposium on the Septuagint for the inaugural meeting of the Reformation Bible Society.[2] This Society is made up primarily of those who locate the perfectly preserved text of the New Testament in the various editions of the Textus Receptus.[3] This is the first attempt to apply their ideas about the NT text to the OT. There are several critiques that might be offered, but this blog does not offer adequate space for them all.[4]
One point is significant to learn from this symposium. According to the RBS lectures, the only reasonable and allowable use of the Septuagint is to help us understand particular vocabulary and assist with Bible translation of the Old Testament.[5] Christian McShaffrey, for instance, uses Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14.[6] His point is to show us that the Apostles are here giving a clear and authoritative interpretation of the unclear Hebrew עַלְמָ֗ה (young woman/virgin). The Septuagint translates this with παρθένος (virgin), which Matthew quotes, and therefore gives Apostolic “seal” to that meaning of the Hebrew. This is helpful in translation of the OT, and interpretation of Isaiah itself. But is this the only way which we can conservatively use the Septuagint? Is it the only way that the Reformed writers have used it?
In this two-part blog article, I would like to propose an answer to those exact questions. It is clear from the overall evidence that there is no such thing as the Reformed view on the Septuagint. There are differing opinions, ranging from total rejection to sympathetic willingness to use it for a variety of goals. I want to present my case in four phases. First, by defining what I mean by “Septuagint;” second, in examining the authority and reliability recognized by Reformed writers; third, by looking at two uses for the Septuagint found throughout the Reformed literature (canonical reinforcement, and textual preservation); finally, I want to address how quotations of the Septuagint in the NT have been handled by Reformed commentators, using Hebrews 8:9 as an example.
Defining the Term “Septuagint”
The term “Septuagint” is not an easy one to define. It is slightly misleading, as it seems to refer to a homogenous text, bound in a single volume. In fact, as Moises Silva and Karen Jobes have stated, “there is really no such thing as the Septuagint.”[7] What Silva and Jobes mean, is that in the ancient world, there is no one volume or translation which can be properly called “the Septuagint.” This is why scholars like Greg Lanier and William Ross prefer the term, “the Greek Old Testament.”[8] This term will be used throughout the rest of this article, abbreviated as GOT.
With this qualification in mind, when we speak about the GOT, we are talking about an early, very ancient translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Ellis Brotzman has estimated that it “was initially translated in the third to second centuries B.C. It thus represents the earliest of the translations of the Old Testament.”[9] Thus, the term Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament, is used to refer to a set of Greek translations which were completed before the time of the Apostles.[10]
The Corruption and Authority of the Greek Old Testament
The Reformed view of the GOT is not homogenous. However, a reading of the material will demonstrate that most (if not all) agree on one point—that the GOT was corrupted early on. This view is evident in the work of William Whitaker (1548-1595), a profoundly important Puritan. In his volume A Disputation on Holy Scripture (1588), he states that the authority of the GOT is uncertain because, it seems that the text has been “wholly lost.”[11] He goes on to say that, “[either] this Greek version which hath come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority.”[12]
Another renowned Puritan, John Owen (1616-1683), was very skeptical of the GOT. He wrote in several places about the uselessness of the version and its doubtful state. He says, “That this translation. . . which is corrupted and gone off from the original in a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who know aught of these things.”[13] In another place he writes, “All the things which are commonly said about this version are so uncertain, and there have been so many and so great clashes of opinion about it, that a single human life span would hardly suffice for an accurate examination of them all—and yet many foolish men still rush into dispute over this version.”[14]
Despite this corruption, the Reformed have recognized that the GOT is not to be thrown out, but serves as a subordinate standard, under the Hebrew original. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) excellently explains this in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology. He states that we concede this version to have great authority, though it is, “human, not divine, since what was done by the translators was by human effort only, not by prophets and men who were God-breathed by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”[15] In this same place he gives us six reasons why this version should be considered, “of great weight and rightly to be preferred to other translations.”[16] First, it is the oldest translation; second, it was read publicly and privately by Jews; third, the apostles and evangelists “consecrated it,” by citing it; fourth, the apostles gave it to the church; fifth, the Greek and Latin churches held it as the authorized version for six hundred years; finally, the fathers and ancient church writers used it for commentaries and creeds.[17] However, says Turretin, “the question is whether it has such an authority as that it ought to be regarded as authentic and equal to the sources. Our adversaries maintain this; we deny it.”[18] So then, while the Reformed have been honest in recognizing that the GOT has not been perfectly preserved but has been corrupted thoroughly, yet it is useful as an authority and witness to the Hebrew text.
The Westminster Divines likewise did not recognize the GOT as divinely inspired nor perfectly preserved. Afterall, they wrote the confession that says the OT original was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek.[19] Nevertheless, they saw the benefits of using the GOT. Indeed, they commissioned the printing of an edition of the GOT. In session 962, held on November 30, 1647, while the committee was debating proof texts for chapter 1 of the confession, they voted to enlist a “Mr. Young” to the duty of printing the GOT and wish, “that he may have encouragement to proceed in so good a work.”[20] The significance of this is not small, but it means that they believed, as an assembly, that the GOT was a worthy investment, helpful for their biblical work and exegesis.
Conclusion to Part One
As far as the Reformed view of the GOT two lessons are learned in this first part. First, there is wide agreement that the GOT has been radically corrupted. This in fact is one of the details that sets apart the version from the Hebrew original, since the Hebrew has been “kept pure in all ages” (1689, 1:8). Second, according to Turretin, the GOT is an old and helpful version of the Old Testament. It should be noted at this point that there is little to no disagreement with the Reformation Bible Society on this first part. However, they are more adamant about a single “classical-Protestant view,” while I am suggesting that a spectrum of views existed. Part two of this series will address the ways in which the GOT has been used by Reformed writers, which will get down to the core of the disagreements with the Reformation Bible Society.
Bibliography
Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1994.
Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Second edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2015.
Mahlen, Brett, and Christian McShaffrey. “Doxology or Devil? A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord’s Prayer.” PRJ 13.2 (2021): 21–31.
Owen, John. Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth; in Six Books. Translated by William H. Goold and Stephen P. Westcott. Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria Publ, 2009.
———. The Works of John Owen. 16. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.
Riddle, Jeffrey, and Christian McShaffrey, eds. Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers. Winter Springs: The Greater Heritage Christian Publishing, 2022.
Ross, William A., and Gregory R. Lanier. The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2021.
Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Third edition, Completely revised and Expanded. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992.
Van Dixhoorn, Chad B., and David Frederick Wright, eds. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Whitaker, William. A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Translated by William Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000.
[1] Jared Ebert is a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary working on his thesis in New Testament under Dr. Timothy Decker. He is a Husband and Father, the Senior Pastor at Mount Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and a Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations.
[2] All of the presentations have been posted and may be view at any moment on their website. https://www.reformationbiblesociety.org/2024-media/ [accessed October 29, 2024].
[3] Those who hosted the event like Dr. Jeff Riddle and William McShaffrey have written articles and edited books on this subject. Brett Mahlen and Christian McShaffrey, “Doxology or Devil? A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord’s Prayer,” PRJ 13.2 (2021): 21–31; Jeffrey Riddle and Christian McShaffrey, eds., Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers (Winter Springs: The Greater Heritage Christian Publishing, 2022).
[4] A critique has already been offered via YouTube by two world class scholars—William A. Ross and John Meade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8. Dr. Jeff Riddle has responded to this critique on his own page in a two-and-a-half-hour video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN7ugh3wO24. [all accessed October 29, 2024].
[5] It is important to notice what they are actually saying. They do not believe that the Septuagint is completely useless, nor are they contending for a particular English translation that trumps ancient editions. They believe that the Septuagint is subordinate to the Hebrew, and that it should not be used in matters of textual criticism. In their view, the Masoretic text perfectly reflects the original text of the Old Testament.
[6] McShaffrey is echoing the Trinitarian Bible Society article “The Septuagint: God’s Blessing on Translation,” (1998) by Debra Anderson, who uses this exact example with the same conclusions. https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/TheSeptuagint [accessed October 30, 2024].
[7] Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, Second edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2015), 17.
[8] They state, “With this in mind, we primarily use the term Greek Old Testament, by which we mean the various translations and later revisions of the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. This term helps avoid the undesirable impression of textual uniformity.” William A. Ross and Gregory R. Lanier, The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 36.
[9] Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1994), 73.
[10] The history of the transmission and various editions of the GOT is complicated and far outside of the scope of this article. The reader is recommended to see the following resources for more information. Ross and Lanier, The Septuagint; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint; Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Third edition. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015); Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, 72–80.
[11] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. William Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2000), 119, and 121.
[12] Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 122.
[13] John Owen, The Works of John Owen. 16 (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 301.
[14] John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History of Theology from Adam to Christ or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth; in Six Books, trans. William H. Goold and Stephen P. Westcott (Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2009), 540.
[15] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1: First through Tenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg: P & R Publ, 1992), 128.
[16] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1, 128.
[17] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1, 128.
[18] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. 1, 128.
[19] See both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 chapter 1 paragraph 8.
[20] I have smoothed out the English and punctuation here to make it more readable. The full entry as transcribed by Chad Van Dixhoorn reads, “That a committee of this Assembly <shall be appointed> [which] shall humbly move the Hon[oura]ble House of commons to take the paines of Mr Young in the <printing of the> Septuagint into their consideration that he may have Incouragment <to proceed> in so good a worke.” Chad B. Van Dixhoorn and David Frederick Wright, eds., The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652, 5 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4:711.
About the Author
Jared Ebert is married to Mykala, and is the father of Micah and Trinity. He received a BA in Pastoral Studies and Bible from Baptist Bible College, and a MDiv with an emphasis in Biblical Languages from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is now studying as a Research ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, researching in New Testament supervised by Dr. Timothy Decker. He currently serves as the Senior Pastor at Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY, and as the Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations. He is the author of Reading for Joy: A Handbook for Bible Reading.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
by Ben Carlson | Nov 4, 2024 | New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
What should we think of polygamy?
How are we to think about the practice of polygamy or a husband having multiple wives at the same time?[1] Below are the differing views on what the Bible teaches concerning this practice:
1.) The whole Bible approves of it.
2.) The Old Testament approved of it, but the New Testament condemns it.
3.) The Old Testament allowed it but did not approve of it, but the New Testament condemns it.
4.) The whole Bible condemns it.
In order to come to the right view on polygamy, let’s think about it from a biblical-theological perspective.
1.) Polygamy at Creation
The creation narrative gives no indication that polygamy was God’s original blueprint for marriage. God made a helper fit for Adam, not many helpers (Genesis 2:18). The two of them (not three or more) were brought together by God and became one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Jesus substantiates this view (Matthew 19:4-6). Therefore, it is clear that monogamy, not polygamy, was God’s original design for marriage.
2.) Polygamy after the Fall
We never read of Adam taking on more wives, even after the Fall. But the first time we read about polygamy is within the wicked line of Cain. Lamech’s arrogant and vengeful sword song makes mention of his two wives (Genesis 4:23). This indicates that polygamy did not come from the preceptive will of God nor from the practice of our first parents but originated from the worldly, faithless, ungodly line of the serpent.
3.) Polygamy in the Lives of the Godly
Admittedly, polygamy was also practiced by OT saints. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon either had multiple wives, many concubines, or several children with their wives’ maidservants. But their practice does not make polygamy right. If their examples teach us anything, they reveal to us that polygamous relationships lead to many worldly troubles and sorrows (think of Jacob and his martial issues with Leah and Rachel)!
4.) Polygamy in the Law
Polygamy seems to be regulated in the law of Moses.
Exodus 21:10: If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17: 15If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, 17but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.
The levirate marriage also leaves open the possibility of polygamy if the deceased husband’s brother was currently married when he acted as the kinsman redeemer (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
Thus, the Old Testament does not outrightly condemn the practice of polygamy. It was not treated as an adulterous relationship to be punished by death. But this does not mean it was approved of. I believe polygamy should be seen in the same light as the laws which regulated divorce. In Matthew 19, Jesus is asked if it was lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause. The Jews point out that in the law of Moses, it was lawful to give a wife a certificate of divorce and send her away. But listen to Jesus’ answer: “He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Matthew 19:8).
The same thing could be said about polygamy: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to have multiple wives, but from the beginning it was not so”! Because of the hardness of heart in the Old Covenant people of God, Moses permitted the practice of polygamy, but from the beginning it was not so, and a time would come when this unnatural practice would be rooted out of the people of God for good. As Murungi Igweta says, “Therefore at best polygamy was allowed or tolerated, as was divorce, although it never was God’s purpose for marriage.”[2] Or as John Murray says, “The position would then be that because of perversity they were permitted to take more wives than one. Polygamy was not penalized by civil or ecclesiastical censures, even though in terms of the creation ordinance it was a violation of the divine institution. Men were permitted to take more wives than one, but from the beginning it was not so. Sufferance there indeed was, but no legitimation or sanction of the practice.”[3]
5.) Polygamy in the New Testament
The New Testament clearly teaches that monogamy is the only acceptable marriage practiced by Christians. To my knowledge, the New Testament does not give even one example of a man having multiple wives at the same time. This “silence” speaks volumes to the issue of polygamy.
But the NT explicitly teaches against polygamy. For instance, in order to be a leader within the church (a pastor or deacon), a Christian man must not be a polygamist. If he is married, he must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12) or literally “a one-woman man”. In other words, he must be faithfully committed to only one wife.
But monogamy is not just the standard for church leaders. It is the standard for all Christians in general. Throughout 1 Corinthians 7, marriage is spoken of in terms of one man and one woman. Verse 2 makes this clear: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
The example of Christ is also a compelling argument against polygamy. Since He is the Husband and Head of only one Bride, the church, a husband should follow His example and only have one wife as well. As Ephesians 5:23 says, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior.”[4]
Conclusion
The right view of polygamy is that it violates God’s original design for marriage. Since it was a widespread cultural reality throughout the Ancient Near East, and since it had even infiltrated the Old Covenant people of God, it was regulated by OT law within the Israelite community but never officially endorsed or approved of. At the coming of Christ, those regulations passed away, and the New Testament bears clear witness to the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman, just as it was before the Fall and just as it is pictured in Christ’s relationship with the church. Lifelong monogamy—one man and one woman becoming one flesh for life—was, is, and will always be God’s design for marriage.
[1] A more precise term is polygyny, meaning the practice of a man having many wives.
[2] Murungi Igweta, “May a Christian be a Polygamist?”, https://www.trinity.or.ke/article/may-a-christian-be-a-polygamist/.
[3] John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 17.
[4] I would add a final heading of “Polygamy in the New Heavens and New Earth” but since human marriage does not exist there (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:34-36), there is no need to argue against polygamy or for monogamy.
Ben has been one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, since June 2017. In February 2018, he received his Master of Divinity from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben has been married to his lovely wife Ali since September 2011. They have four children together: Liam, Luther, Cosette, and Maezie. In his spare time, Ben enjoys playing with his kids, coaching, doing yard work, and Friday family nights.
