Nobody knows just when the Old Testament Scriptures were first turned into Greek, but there is, apparently, an allusion to that translation in Ecclesiasticus, a book of the Apocrypha dating from about BC 180.

There is a highly artificial story, repeated with much gusto by the learned fathers (sic!) of the early church, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, one of the Greek kings of Egypt, was at the back of it. Himself a well-read man, he sought to encourage the study of all forms of learning by bringing together in Alexandria the finest library that could be assembled. In pursuance of this object he sent to Jerusalem for a team of learned men who would turn the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for him. Already Greek had become the international language of a large part of the civilised world. The high priest obliged with the loan of no less than seventy-two of his best scholars. Each pair were given their own cell, and, the guidance of God having been invoked on their undertaking, they set to work, and in due time produced thirty-six translations of the Old Testament, all of them word for word the same! It may have happened that way. Or, it may not. Septuagint is a shortened form of “seventy”. One legend even says that two of the men died on the way to Alexandria, hence “seventy”. Certainly in later days the copies of the Septuagint (LXX) became very corrupted. Several recensions are available today. There are some indications that Paul took his quotations from what is known today as the Alexandrine, as distinct from the more popular Sinaitic, text.

“Buy a Septuagint”

The LXX shall be recognized for what it certainly is — one of the finest helps in Bible study available today, especially to those who have a modicum of Greek. The story is told that a certain professor of Old Testament studies at Heidelberg University used to begin his lectures by saying: “Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell whatever you have and buy a Septuagint.” That was one way of making a very valuable point.

Working Man’s Bible

It is true that the LXX is very variable in quality of translation as well as of basic underlying Hebrew text. It is true that it includes here and there various materials which do not appear in the Masoretic text. It is true also that it omits bits of the text which are there in Hebrew. It is true that it not infrequently dislocates the sequence of the Hebrew text. It is true that its translation frequently presupposes either a different pointing or a different reading in the original. And yet in spite of these disconcerting features — sometimes because of them — the LXX can be a wonderful help to a better appreciation of the Book. This is primarily because Jesus and his apostles were all at home in the LXX. A big proportion of their Scripture quotations are directly from or are based on, this working man’s Bible (eg, all Stephen’s Old Testament quotes and allusions in Acts 7 are straight LXX). It has to be remembered that, in the first century, whereas only a limited few were familiar enough with classical Hebrew to be able to handle the original text purposefully, practically everybody was familiar enough with the common Greek to be able to appreciate the message of the LXX. Estimates as to its authority have varied considerably. The “early fathers”, and some scholars of the past century deemed the LXX to be fully inspired by God. Perhaps for this reason orthodox Rabbinic scholars have adopted an opposite opinion. The day which was supposed to celebrate the making of the LXX they called “the fast of darkness… like the day on which the golden calf was made.” Without coming to any hard and fast opinion on this question, on which little valuable guidance is available, it is necessary for any Bible student worth his salt to build up a certain familiarity with the Bible of Jesus and Paul.

Re-arranged text

Where the LXX follows a markedly different text it is usually possible to judge just how authoritative or useful the alternative is. In the Ten Commandments, the LXX order is: “Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill.” Which order is right? In any case, is it very important? But when the chronology of the first half of Genesis appears with wholesale alterations the problem is more serious. When the LXX picks up Jeremiah chapters 46-51 — the long sequence of judgments against the nations — and tucks them in next to Jer 25, before and behind, this seems right, for those chapters are an obvious expansion of that dire and comprehensive prophecy.

Proverbs

There are certain chapters in Proverbs which in the LXX display unexpected additions as well as distinctly different readings. Indeed many rather mystifying aphorisms from this book of wisdom take on an altogether different flavour. A few examples of this, all from Pro 15, may not be amiss here.

Verse 1: “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up strife.” The LXX prefaces this with the trenchant addition: “Anger slays even wise men; but…” The rest of the verse shows how this is possible.

Verse 4 reads: “The healing tongue is a tree of life, and (LXX) he that guards it — or, possibly, watches his opportunity — shall be filled with the Spirit.”

Verse 5 has this addition which no one would wish to discard: “In abounding righteousness is great strength (another tree of life), but the ungodly shall perish, his roots entirely out of the ground.” The mind goes instinctively to: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Mat 15:13): and to this: “Ye shall say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it shall obey you” (Luke 17:6).

The majority of the parables of Jesus are traceable to the Book of Proverbs.

Verse 18 (King James’ Bible) has this: “A wrathful man stirreth up strife; but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife” — which is near to being a platitude. Much more colourful is the LXX reading: “A passionate man prepares strife; but the patient man will pacify even that which he had determined.”

Verse 27 has an addition to which no counterpart exists in the Hebrew text. “By alms and faithful dealing sins are purged away.” A palpable forgery, for in the Bible, from beginning to end, there is only one road to forgiveness of sins, and this is not it.

Improvements in Isaiah

There are times when the LXX is immediately seen to be right, and valuable as a correction of the received text. Consider that intriguing passage in Isa 16:4: “Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab”. This has often been interpreted as a divine fiat that in the last days “Moab” (whoever that might mean) should grant a place of refuge for people of Israel fleeing for their lives. In the LXX: “Let the outcasts of Moab dwell with thee (Israel).” This is palpably right, for the same passage prophesies Messiah: “And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging and seeking judgement, and hasting righteousness.” At such a time there will be no outcasts of Israel needing sanctuary. But then those who have cherished hostility to God’s People over many years will need to “kiss the Son, lest he be angry.”

Still in Isaiah: “where is the house that ye build unto me: and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord” (Isa 66:1,2). That last rather meaningless phrase reads thus in the LXX: “and all these things are mine.” This reading is so obviously sensible in its meaning, and so necessary to complete the parallelism, that few will be disposed to question it.

Omissions made good?

There are a number of places where the LXX appears to have preserved a reading, perhaps only a phrase or a mere word, which has somehow dropped out of the Hebrew text. A fairly well-known example is in Gen 4:8 where LXX adds: “And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the plain.” The words are important as indicating Cain’s deliberate intention to murder his brother.

More problematical is the way in which the LXX fills up what is an obvious gap in Psa 145. This is an acrostic psalm, with the middle verse, beginning with Hebrew N (nun) omitted. Was it omitted originally by design, to draw attention to a rather dramatic change in tone? Or has it dropped out of the Hebrew text, but been preserved in LXX as the second part of v 13: “The Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works”? The second explanation is made less likely when one observes that this LXX reading is only a tame reproduction of what the psalm already says in v 17.

1 Samuel (LXX)

Many believe that LXX has the answer to a problem often raised regarding the story of David and Goliath. How explain the strange inability of Saul to recognize David (1Sa 17:55), when apparently the boy had already spent a good deal of time in service at the king’s court both as harpist and armour-bearer? The LXX solves this difficulty by omitting altogether 1Sa 17:12-31 and 1Sa 17:55-18:5. Strangely enough, the story of David and Goliath suffers comparatively little by this omission, but the story of David and Jonathan suffers a lot. Perhaps, then, it is the section 1Sa 16:14-23 which is out of place. If this were transferred to 1Sa 18:5, would there be any problem?

The LXX text of 1 Samuel is remarkably good and usually preferable to the Hebrew. In that book users of the RSV or RV should look with favour on any marginal readings labelled “Gk” or “Sept”. But this rule cannot be carried over with safety to other parts of the Old Testament. In 2Sa 17:2,3 LXX the counsel and promise of Ahithophel to Absalom reads much more intelligibly and convincingly than the common text: “And I will smite the king only. And I will bring all the people to thee, as a bride turns to her husband. For thou seekest the life of one man (only), and (then) for all the people there shall be peace.” Textual alternatives such as these are valuable.

Another example: Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple has this LXX addition: “The Lord created the sun, but he hath determined to dwell in darkness (the Holy of Holies). Build thou my house, a beautiful house for Thyself to dwell in newness (a new order?). Behold, is not this written in the Book of Jasher?” (1Ki 8:53). Probably this is a quotation from the lost Book of Jasher belonging originally to the occasion when a house of “newness” was fashioned for God in the wilderness. Solomon quoted the words because they enshrined a principle that still held good — God’s choice of the Holy of Holies as His dwelling place in the midst of His people.

Help with Old Testament allusions

Examples such as these are interesting and often informative. But of much greater value are the instances when the LXX helps appreciably with the understanding of obscure passages. “Beware of dogs, beware of the concision,” wrote Paul in curt contempt (Phi 3:2). It was obviously a slighting reference to Judaists with their confidence in circumcision (see v 3). But the point of it comes out so much more when the same Greek word is traced to the ordeal of Elijah on mount Carmel. Then the priests of Baal sought to commend themselves to the attention of their god by the way they “cut themselves… with knives and lancets” (1Ki 18:28). To liken dedicated Judaists to such men was an act of temerity. Yet what fundamental difference was there? For these zealots for the Law also sought the favour of Jehovah by “cutting themselves with knives and lancets.” Paul rubbed the point well in by his other jibe: “Beware of dogs.” Let a man be never so zealous for Moses, he makes himself into a mere dog of a Gentile if he relies on his own observance of forms and rites to earn his salvation. Or were those priests of Baal “dogs” of a different sort? (Deu 23:18).

In Isa 65:22-25, the LXX rescues a delightful allusion which is otherwise liable to get lost. In the prophet’s entrancing picture of the kingdom, “as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people.” This is impressive indeed when you think of the age of Californian redwoods. But the LXX says: “As the days of the Tree of Life”! — and this is transparently correct, for the prophecy continues: “mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands” — contrast the curse of unremitting toil put on Adam. LXX: “My chosen shall not toil in vain, nor beget children for the curse (the curse in Eden), for they are the seed of the Blessed of the Lord (belonging to the Seed of the Woman)… and dust shall be the serpent’s meat.” It is the LXX whch supplies the clue here.

Exact word meaning

The question sometimes arises as to whether Mat 24:34 is correctly translated in the AV: “This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled.” But all the things spoken of by Jesus were not fulfilled in that generation. And, it is argued, the normal meaning of the Greek word “genea” is not generation but race; so surely the allusion is to the imperishable character of Israel. This argument would be correct if the gospels were written in classical Greek. But the LXX comes to the rescue with its clear evidence of copious use of “genea” with reference to a generation in the normal sense of the term. And the New Testament adds yet further support on this point.

More subtle allusions

Above all else, the LXX helps in the tracing of Old Testament allusions which otherwise it would be almost impossible to detect. It is possible, for example, to establish that Paul wrote the first few verses of Romans 5 just after he had pondered Psalms 25,26 in the course of his daily readings. At no point is there any direct quote from these Psalms, but one key word after another is traceable in the Greek of the LXX text: “rejoice… hope… stand… glory… tribulation patience… ashamed… without strength… ungodly… truth.” Similarly, in Eph 3 it is possible with the help of the LXX to trace a series of allusions to Job 28 and its description of the search for Wisdom. It is as though the apostles’ profound appreciation of the fulness of God’s wondrous work in Christ was flood-lit by the sharp contrast of Job’s groping for higher truth.

There is lovely allusiveness of this kind also in Christ’s warning to Peter on the night of his betrayal: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” [Luk 22:32] In the LXX this is very close to the word of David to lttai the Gittite at the time of Absalom’s rebellion: “return thou, and take back thy brethren” (2Sa 15:20). Peter made answer: “With thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death,” which seems very much like an echo (in the LXX) of Ittai’s reply to David: “Surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in life or in death, even there also will thy servant be.” And Peter promptly went back into the city, even as Ittai had done. It would seem that both Jesus and Peter appreciated at this time the close parallel between the betrayal of the Lord and the rebellion of Absalom. Since Peter’s rejoinder came so readily and so aptly out of that Scripture, one is led to wonder if he and his Master were discussing it as they went to Gethsemane (note Joh 18:1; 2Sa 15:23).

The New Testament is shot through with this kind of allusiveness, but much of it is extremely difficult to detect, especially since in many instances the allusion comprises a single word or one brief phrase which, as often as not, appears differently translated in the English version of the Old Testament. The identity has to be established between the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek of the LXX. For example, “betrayed” (Mar 14:21) = “made intercession” (lsa 53:12 LXX); “gall of bitterness” (Act 8:23) = “gall of wormwood” (Deu 29:18; Jer 23:15?); “he hath done all things well” (Mar 7:37) is very close to Gen 1:31 LXX: “everything that he had made… very good”; “The Holy Spirit shall… overshadow thee” (Luk 1:35) = “The Spirit of God moved (Gen 1:2 LXX). There are so many of these that their occurrences cannot be written off as coincidence.

The Concordance to the Septuagint, by Hatch and Redpath, a superb piece of scholarship, is the best tool available for work of this sort. But it is very expensive, and even for those with a ready facility in Greek the using of it is a tedious labour, since all the passages are quoted in Greek. For most readers of this book, reading in English the LXX of Genesis, Psalms and Prophets with an ear tuned to catch any familiar cadence is probably the most fruitful approach. If this is done in the Bagster edition (Greek and English) there is additional help also from the footnotes. But whatever the method the use of the Septuagint is only for the enthusiast.

(WBS 10.16)

I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I’d rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. The eye’s a better pupil and more willing than the ear; Fine counsel is confusing, but example’s always clear: And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their creeds, For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.

I soon can learn to do it if you’ll let me see it done; I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run. And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true, But I’d rather get my lessons by observing what you do; For I might misunderstand you and the high advice you give, But there’s no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.

When I see a deed of kindness, I am eager to be kind. When a weaker brother stumbles and a strong man stays behind Just to see if he can help him, then the wish grows strong in me To become as big and thoughtful as I know that friend to be. And all travelers can witness that the best of guides today Is not the one who tells them, but the one who shows the way.

One good man teaches many; men believe what they behold: One deed of human kindness is worth forty that are told. Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear, For right living speaks a language which to everyone is clear. Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say, I’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Edgar Guest

Perhaps this lovely story of 1Sa 3 may provide the answer to a question which arises in the life of Jesus: How (and when) did Jesus come to know of his Divine parentage? It may be that Mary and Joseph revealed this to him, but then again the Bible does not say so. We do know that Mary very modestly refrained from telling Joseph of the conception of Jesus, waiting instead until God, in His own time, made matters clear. It would be in keeping with her character if she and Joseph likewise refrained from explaining to Jesus who his real father was, knowing that God would choose His own method to explain Himself.

If this were so, then when and how did God tell Jesus? The record is silent; but perhaps the story of the child Samuel provides a key. The similarities between Samuel and Jesus are many: each a special conception, each a holy child, each dedicated by a righteous mother to the service of God. A Bible-directed imagination may supply the rest:

It was night and the child Jesus, now twelve years old, lay down to sleep near the Temple of God in Jerusalem, where he had come with his family to keep the Passover (Luk 2:41,42). That night the Lord called Jesus, and he answered, ‘Here I am.’ He came to Joseph, who was sleeping nearby: ‘Here I am, father; you called me.’ But Joseph replied, ‘I didn’t call; it was only a dream.’ And Jesus went to lie down again. The Lord called yet again, ‘Jesus!’, and again he went to Joseph, only to find that he had not called. A third time the same thing happened. Finally the light dawned for Joseph and Mary, and they knew the source of the calls. ‘Go, Jesus, lie down: and it shall be, when the call comes again, you must say, “Speak, Father; for Thy Son heareth.” ‘

Thus, perhaps, in or near the courts of his Father’s house, the child Jesus (the same age, 12, as Samuel had been?) followed that voice to his first meeting with his true Father. And thus began that majestic, mysterious communion like no other. Through so many long nights, on mountaintops, by the seaside, and in crowded cities, he spoke with the Father. And Jesus grew, and the Lord was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground.

The letters to “the angels of the seven ecclesias” in Asia Minor are the only messages sent personally by Christ to his ecclesias. They are very important in molding our ecclesial outlook and philosophy, for they are fundamental in their application to present-day situations.

How is this so? Firstly, each ecclesia is treated as being responsible for its own affairs only. Even when the Spirit comes to the decidedly lukewarm, almost lost Laodicea, even then there is no call upon the other six ecclesias to disfellowship this erring group. The brotherhood in Asia Minor in the first century apparently knew nothing of “block disfellowship”: each of the seven ecclesias was “in fellowship” with the other six, despite internal problems in some cases far more severe than any we have ever witnessed in the latter-day revival of the Truth.

And, even more to the point, each of the seven “stars” is in Christ’s right hand (Rev 1:16; 2:1)! A hasty excommunication of a whole ecclesia (or group of ecclesias) might very well put us in the awkward position of arm-wrestling with the right hand of the Saviour! The ecclesias are Christ’s dominion; he has warned that no man can pluck them out of his hand (John 10:28). In supporting the Christadelphian stand on worldly politics, we often argue (rightly) that God rules in the world’s kingdoms, so why should we interfere? Is it not just as easy for us to grasp the further Biblical principle that Christ rules over the ecclesial world, and that our interference here may also be a fighting against God?

Consider now the special situation in Sardis: “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead… Be watchful, and strengthen those things that remain, that are ready to die… Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments… They are worthy…” “Become watchful” is the exhortation of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of the ecclesias. Watch and pray through a dark and dangerous night, watch for and be prepared to combat the “wolves” that attack the flock (Joh 10). “Strengthen those things that remain”: Build up what is left of the protective wall, and encourage those who are willing for the common work (Neh 2:18). Do not withdraw from the ecclesia, even though it seems ready to die.

“Thou hast a few names in Sardis”: The few names, or faithful remnant, are still a part of the ecclesia — let it be noted! “They have not defiled their garments.” Oh, but this is precisely what the “minority” “fellowships” would say they had done, being ‘defiled by association’!

Notwithstanding, the judgment of Christ stands sure and firm on the page of Scripture: “THEY ARE WORTHY” — despite their “unsavory” associations.

CC Walker, past editor of The Christadelphian, drew upon this passage when asked by a correspondent concerning the respective merits of the various “fellowships”:

“You will be in no danger by obeying the Truth in the fellowship of The Christadelphian and the Birmingham ecclesia. Even should this community be as dead as the Church in Sardis, if you walk worthily you will be saved (Rev 3:4)” (“A Pure Fellowship”, Xdn 95:258).

It should be easily perceived that Brother Walker’s position parallels that of Brother Roberts in the following quotation:

” ‘He that hath the seven Spirits of God’ — the symbolic affirmation of omniscience — has little to say in the way of commendation to the brethren in Sardis. ‘Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.’ Men knew the reputation of the Sardian ecclesia: the possessor of ‘the seven stars’ — the seven Spirit lights kindled in the seven ecclesias — knew their state. ‘I have not found thy works perfect before God.’ Jesus watches and discerns the developments of probation. He requires not to bring men to the judgment seat to know, though he will bring them there to reveal them. There were a few exceptions in Sardis: ‘Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy’; from which we learn that membership in a dead ecclesia will not interfere with individual acceptance where worthiness exists” (13L 20,21).

The above quotations are not apologies for error! They are, however, hypotheses for the worst possible position to which an ecclesia or a group of ecclesias might fall, without losing fellowship with God. (Can any Christadelphian honestly go on record as believing that the Central fellowship — or any other “group” of Christadelphians, for that matter — is below the standard of these seven ecclesias, which, despite their faults, were still addressed as “ecclesias” and symbolized by “lampstands”?)

Positively speaking, the above quotations are also a corrective to that futile and depressing search for an impossible “purity”, which many have been taught is necessary.

In all of Revelation 2 and 3, Christ gives no hint of a command to any one ecclesia to excommunicate any of the others, not even Laodicea. The reason may be easily determined: The avowed basis of faith and fellowship of each congregation was nominally sound, despite internal problems (which could not and should not be judged at a distance). Christ himself firmly holds the prerogative to punish or cast out erring individuals and ecclesias in other localities.

Do we really believe that Christ rules today in the ecclesias — in Bible terminology, that we walks among the seven lampstands (Rev 1:13)? If we do, then consider this: Christ warned the seven first-century ecclesias of their possible removal due to apostasy (Rev 2:5). They are not in existence today, because they did not continue to heed the exhortations delivered through the Apostle John. It was not persecution that removed these lightstands; it was their failure to honor God. Can we not also have the same confidence today that Christ has control of every situation, that Christ can handle such matters as he did in the first century, without our imperfect meddling and second-guessing in matters too difficult for us? Let us also remember 1Jo 2:19:

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”

I have quoted above from Brother Thomas as follows:

“The Apostolic Christendom, then, to which John wrote, was divisible into these two sections, which were more or less commingled in the ecclesias generally — real and nominal christians…” (Eur 1:422).

To this I will add a further short quotation:

“Antipas still retained his original position in all the ecclesias, which, although teeming with ‘false brethren’ both in the presbyteries and among the multitudes, had not yet been ‘spued out of the mouth of the Spirit.’ Antipas was the remnant of the Woman’s Seed contending earnestly for the faith….” (Ibid 335).

A view of our duties in regard to ecclesial fellowship which is in harmony with Rev 3:1-5 is presented by Brother John Carter:

“We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all the factors in any borderline case, those factors being only known to the members of that ecclesia. There must then be mutual respect for each other’s judgments” (“A House Divided”, Xdn 94:187).

“In an attempt to justify such action [ie, disfellowship of ‘erring’ ecclesias] it has been suggested recently that although we are not informed of such a move, it may be assumed that after reading the Spirit’s letter, the faithful few in Sardis would withdraw from the dead majority. But even if they did withdraw after hearing the Spirit’s judgment, would that justify us in withdrawing before any judgment has been passed? For our own part we will not venture to judge that any who hold the One Faith are dead or unworthy. If any man sins we accept the judgment of the majority of his ecclesia as to whether he should be rebuked or cut off from fellowship, but even in the latter extreme we should have his ultimate salvation as a main object and so be most ready to restore him ‘in the spirit of meekness’. As for wholesale condemnation of an ecclesia as ‘dead’, we would not venture so to judge even of those which appear most negative. Christ has not passed judgment on the brethren of the latter days. When he does give his verdict undoubtedly there be some dreadful surprises” (IC, “A Pure Fellowship”, Xd 68:410).