New Testament Quotations from the Old Testament
By Algernon J. Pollock
Algernon Pollock (1864–1957) was an evangelist and apologist writer belonging to the Plymouth Brethren. In this article he quotes from and refutes Dr E. Griffith-Jones (1860-1942), a Congregational Minister and Principal of the Yorkshire United Independent College, Bradford, 1907-1932. The article is reproduced from the January-March 1932 Bible League Quarterly. It serves to show that the tactics of theological liberals in casting doubt upon the integrity of Holy Scripture is nothing new. It should also be noted that both men are long dead as to their bodies. But which of the two is now with the Lord, and will rise to a glorious immortality at the resurrection? Sneering unbelief, under the guise of “scholarship” has slain its millions. “Precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1) brings us to the Saviour of sinners, whose every word is truth and salvation – Ed).
A Modernist writer makes a serious attack on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as follows: –
Out of 275 quotations it has been found that there are only 53 in which the Hebrew, the Septuagint (or Greek version of the Old Testament), and the New Testament verbally agree; there are 99 in which the New Testament quotation differs from both (which also differ from one another), and 76 in which the correct Septuagint rendering has been wrongly altered. This is quite incompatible with the position that all the words of Scripture are equally inspired; for can we believe that the Holy Spirit would misquote Himself?
At first sight this statement seems to score a point against the Scriptures. On reflection, however, it but discloses the obtuseness and lack of discernment of the writer. It can be proved that the way in which Old Testament quotations are often altered in the New Testament is one of the strongest asseverations that the Bible has but ONE Author, God Himself.
His own book
If a writer quotes from another writer, he has no option but to quote literally, and with due consideration of the context, so that he shall not misrepresent the author he quotes. But, on the contrary, suppose he quotes from a former book of his own, he is then in a position to alter his quotation to suit his present purpose. Suppose he wrote a book for beginners in the study of some science, we would expect the first elements of that science would be presented in simple language. But if he were to publish later a book for more advanced students on the same subject, we can easily understand how he might quote from his former book, amplifying its simple statements into what was fuller in thought, and more adapted to the advanced students, who had progressed beyond the book for beginners.
Is this not a fair illustration of the matter before us? The Old Testament was a Book for beginners, and we have to wait for the New Testament to have clearly unfolded to us the deep things of God. It needed “the dayspring from on high” to appear before the fuller light could come; and it needed the atoning death, the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and also the descent of the Holy Spirit, to perfect the Christian revelation.
Dared
What New Testament writer would have dared to have altered a single quotation from the Old Testament, unless he himself were the author of that quotation? No, the truth is, God might use a Matthew, a Peter, a Paul, a John as His living pens to write down His communications to men, but God Himself and alone is the Author of both the Old and New Testaments. That the writers of the New Testament should alter Old Testament quotations 222 times out of 275 would be altogether incomprehensible, if they were the uninspired authors of the books that bear their names. If they had not been under the mighty power of God when writing, they would at least have quoted carefully word for word of the ancient Scriptures. Such reverence for the very letter of Scripture was a distinguishing feature of the Jews. They guarded with a holy jealousy the oracles of God. Their manuscript copies of the Scriptures were made with meticulous care.
If it were then a matter of pious fraud, those, who perpetrated it, would have been uncommonly careful to have made word for word quotations.
The answer to the foolish charge of Principal Griffith-Jones is that the inspired writers in the New Testament quoted just as much from the Old Testament as suited the purpose of the Divine Mind, and altered, or amplified it, when necessary, in order to convey, not merely the meaning of the Old Testament passage, but the exact meaning intended to be conveyed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
As much inspired
In short, a quotation from the Old Testament, is altered to suit the mind of the Holy Spirit, is as much inspired as the original words; and the New Testament rendering is as much scripture as the passage quoted, and has equal authority.
In the case of our illustration, it would be possible for the author in a later book, in the light of subsequent discoveries, to correct mistaken ideas in his earlier book. He might even go to the length of flatly contradicting his former statements. But this could not be the case with the Bible. No Old Testament passage is contradicted, or corrected by any writer in the New Testament. Since God is the Author of the Old Testament, its statements must be truth and without error of any sort. In the words of Principal Griffith-Jones, “Can we believe that the Holy Spirit would misquote Himself?” Assuredly not.
Let us consider two New Testament quotations of Old Testament Scriptures: —
“Though it tarry, wait for it: because it will surely come, it will not tarry.” (Habakkuk 2:3)
“For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” (Hebrews 10:37)
Why is the “it” of the Old Testament altered to the “he” of the New Testament? Principal Griffith-Jones sees no more in it than a mistaken bungle on the part of the writer of the New Testament quotation. He is looking at it from the standpoint of a mere mechanical copyist. The fact is, both Scriptures are equally and verbally inspired. They both fit into the scheme of the dispensations to which they belong. In the Old Testament the Jews of Habakkuk’s day were pointed forward to the fulfilment of the prophet’s words: the Babylonians taking Judea into captivity, right on to their destruction by Cyrus and the return of the exiles.
In the New Testament, “it” is changed to “he” because the reference now is to the second coming of the glorious Redeemer and its certainty as the church’s blessed hope. The Christian thus waits for a Person, even the Lord Jesus Christ, and the quotation is altered of set purpose and designedly from the “it” of Habakkuk to the “he” of Hebrews. Both the Old Testament Scripture and the New Testament quotation are alike inspired and equally authoritative.
Another instance
Take another instance, and this must suffice, though we could extend the list to a great length: –
“For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” (Psalm 8:5)
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9)
Evidently the New Testament passage throws the fuller light that Christianity affords upon the Old Testament quotation. In Psalm 8 we are not given the name of the Son of Man. Christ had not come then. Yet a thousand years before His advent into the world the Son of Man is prophesied as coming so surely, that, what was dimly future then, was spoken of as already accomplished. No uninspired pen would have dreamed of putting things that way. The New Testament quotation amplifies the Old Testament quotation by giving the name of the Son of Man, even “Jesus,” and telling us the object for which He was made “a little lower than the angels,” namely, “for the suffering of death,” and that “he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
Yet, Principal Griffith-Jones would have the New Testament writers refuse the fuller light which the coming of Christ brought, and to quote with the rigid accuracy of a mere mechanical copyist, or of a compiler of dry statistics. The living Word cannot be so bound. We should have been infinite losers if it had been.