This is a continuation of the previous essay which was a continuation of a consideration of y^ehôvâh’s (יהוה) instruction to Moses: They^[1] are to eat those things by which atonement (kâphar, כפר; Septuagint: ἡγιάσθησαν, a form of ἁγιάζω) was made to consecrate and to set them apart, but no one else may eat them, for they are holy.^[2]  I’ll begin with a review:

The other occurrences of a form of ὁλοκαύτωμα in the New Testament are found in Hebrews 10:4-9 (NET):

For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins.  So when he came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.

“Whole burnt offerings (ὁλοκαυτώματα, another form of ὁλοκαύτωμα) and sin-offerings you took no delight in.

“Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’”

When he says above, “Sacrifices^[6] and offerings^[7] and whole burnt offerings (ὁλοκαυτώματα, another form of ὁλοκαύτωμα) and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.”^[8]  He does away with the first to establish the second.

The words highlighted in boldface were a quotation from, or an allusion to, Psalm 40:6-8.  Below are three examples of Psalm 40:6-8 translated from contemporary Hebrew.

Since the oldest extant Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament dates from 920 – 930 and the oldest extant manuscript of the book of Hebrews in Greek dates from 175 – 225, it seems obvious that the Masoretes^[9] transformed a prophecy about a body prepared for Christ into a clever insult about digging wax out of David’s ears.  The problem with that, however, is the Septuagint.  Well, it doesn’t have to be a problem, I suppose, not if I switch versions.

Here, both the NET parallel Greek and the Septuagint agree on the word σῶμα (body).  But the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint date from 350 – 450.  So, did the rabbis read a Hebrew word and translate it σῶμα or did believers prefer σῶμα and substitute it?  In one sense I have no objection to preferring the book of Hebrews and by faith, as it were, assuming σῶμα.  But that is exactly what I’ve accused the Masoretes of doing to the Hebrew text:^[10]

…raised from infancy with the belief that Jesus was not, could not possibly be, the promised Messiah, and with no knowledge of deliberate textual corruptions, the Masoretes could have done this^[11] [i.e., added vowel points] in good conscience.

The Blue Letter Bible version of the Septuagint I have been using (which agrees here with the Academic Bible [See Table1 below]) compares to the NET parallel Greek as follows:

In this version the ears (ὠτία) were there already but the “digging” (kârâh, כרית) had become κατηρτίσω (you prepared).  I found an alternative explanation online at Michael S. Heiser.com in an article titled “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7” by Karen H. Jobes.

At first the philosophical bent of my mind clashed with her poetic soul.  Her idea that some anonymous author changed ὠτία (ears) to σῶμα (body) because it sounded better to first century ears was appalling.  But I softened some as she explained the meaning of this rhetorical technique in this particular context.

The most striking feature of this quotation from Psalm 40 is that it is attributed (improperly some would say) to the incarnate Jesus Christ: “Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said … ”  It is as if Psalm 40 had never previously existed; as if these words originated in Christ’s mouth and not in the psalmist’s, some thousand years before.

The belief that all scripture is unified by divine inspiration could be used to explain this attribution.  For whatever David said in Psalms was really being said by God.  And because of the triune relationship of the God-head, whatever God says, Christ says.^[12]

My own working hypothesis is that y^ehôvâh became Jesus: Now [y^ehôvâh] became flesh and took up residence among us.  We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.^[13]  No one has ever seen God (e.g., the Father).^[14]  And HaShem (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth (Numbers 12:5-8 Tanakh).

And He said: ‘Hear now My words: if there be a prophet among you, I HaShem (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) do make Myself known unto him in a vision (marʼâh, במראה; Septuagint: ὁράματι, a form of ὅραμα), I do speak with him in a dream (chălôm, בחלום; Septuagint: ὕπνῳ, a form of ὕπνος).  My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house; with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly (marʼeh, ומראה; Septuagint: εἴδει, a form of εἶδος), and not in dark speeches; and the similitude (t^emûnâh, ותמנת; Septuagint: δόξαν, a form of δόξα) of HaShem (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) doth he behold; wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?’

The only one,^[15] himself God,^[16] who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known^[17] (e.g., in both Old and New Testaments).  He [y^ehôvâh] came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.^[18]  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance^[19] be but life from the dead?  If the first portion of the dough offered is holy (ἁγία, a form of ἅγιος), then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy (ἁγία, a form of ἅγιος), so too are the branches.^[20]  Ms. Jobes continued:

In Hebrews 10, then, the author’s lexical choice in substituting εὐδόκησας for ᾔτησας not only achieves phonetic assonance, but also fits well with the argument made in that chapter.  Sacrifice and offering were not God’s will, burnt offering and sin offering were not God’s good pleasure.  Though God had commanded them when in the past he “spoke to our forefathers through the prophets,” these were not the means through which God would redeem his people from sin.  The past-speaking of the old sacrificial system is superseded when God’s redemptive plan is revealed in Christ.

The clause containing substitutions of σω̂μα for ὠτία and the plural ὁλοκαυτώματα for the singular form is sandwiched between the inclusio formed by ἠθέλησας and εὐδόκησας in an a-b-b’-a’ pattern…

What is the point of these contrasted clauses?  According to the MT, David had “ears” to hear the word of the Lord.  The midrash of Ps 40:7 understands this verse in light of 1 Sam 15:22, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” (the verb is שׁמע, “hearing”).  The reference to David’s ears, which heard the voice of the Lord, is therefore to be understood as referring to David’s obedience to God.

W. C. Kaiser follows this midrashic understanding and also construes this idiom as referring to David’s—somewhat faltering—obedience.  Kaiser sees the substitution of σω̂μα for ὠτία as simply the whole being substituted for the part by the Greek translator in order to produce a culturally dynamic equivalent.  This would then mean that David and Christ were saying essentially the same thing.  But Christ’s obedience to God that abolished the old cultic sacrifices was not the same as David’s obedience to God as theocratic king.  It was not that Jesus lived his life in perfect obedience to God, but more specifically, it was the obedient sacrifice of his body in death that brought an end to animal sacrifice.  As the king of Israel, David could only imperfectly obey God, and his body could never be the once-for-all sacrifice for sin.  Therefore, it was uniquely appropriate for the author of Hebrews to substitute σω̂μα for ὠτία when he also put the words of Ps 40:6–8 in Christ’s mouth.

So when he came into the world, he said… may not be mystic poetry but straightforward reportage.  My own working hypothesis is that Hebrews was Jesus’ teaching between his resurrection and ascension, the teaching that caused Cleopas and his companion to exclaim, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us^[21] while he was speaking with us on the road,^[22] while he was explaining the scriptures to us?”^[23]  I think it is entirely possible that the writer’s informants heard the resurrected Jesus explain this prophecy in exactly this way, and that his teaching was written down some time before Stephen was killed.  Ms. Jobes continued:

The displeasure of God with cultic offerings is contrasted with, “But a body you prepared for me.”  The argument of Hebrews 10 is that it was Jesus Christ’s body which was the sacrifice well-pleasing to God, not the many animal sacrifices endlessly repeated.  The lexical choice of σω̂μα δέ concurrently with the substitution of the plural form of ὁλοκαυτώματα achieves phonetic assonance and by this marked prominence the one body of Christ is contrasted with the many burnt offerings with which God was not pleased.  The rhetorical construction of paronomasia therefore reinforces the point of the argument made in Hebrews 10.

Regarding Hebrews as the teaching of the resurrected Christ, it matters less to me whether He quoted a lost manuscript of Psalm 40 or changed ὠτία (ears) to σῶμα (body) for his own teaching purposes.  Either way He has my attention focused on σῶμα.  Paul equated our old [human] (ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) with the body of sin (τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας): We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.^[24]

And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, Paul wrote believers in Colossae, but now he has reconciled you by his physical body (ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ; literally, “in the body of his flesh”) through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him – if indeed you remain in the faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard.^[25]

But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of^[26] sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness.  Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus^[27] from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ^[28] from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit^[29] who lives^[30] in you.^[31]

The body of the old human does not exhaust the meaning of the body God the Father prepared for Jesus the Christ (Philippians 3:20, 21; 1 Corinthians 15:50-53; Ephesians 1:23 NET):

But our citizenship (πολίτευμα) is in heaven – and we also await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform these humble (ταπεινώσεως, a form of ταπείνωσις) bodies (σῶμα) of ours^[32] into the likeness of his glorious body (σώματι, a form of σῶμα) by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.^[33]

Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot^[34] inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.  Listen, I will tell you a mystery: We^[35] will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.  For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Now the church^[36] is his body (σῶμα), the fullness of him who fills all^[37] in all.

This mystery (Ephesians 5:31, 32), though well worth exploring, must wait for another essay.  A table comparing Psalm 40:6-8 in the Blue Letter Bible version and Academic Bible version of the Septuagint follows.  That is followed by tables of John 1:18; Romans 11:15; Luke 24:32; Romans 8:10, 11; Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:50, 51 and Ephesians 1:23.