Awesome verse - Scripture calisthenics

[mikhen7]

To get your brains working: Jer 11:19 for I was like a docile lamb led to slaughter. I didn’t know that they had devised plots against me: “Let’s destroy the tree with its fruit; let’s cut him off from the land of the living so that his name will no longer be remembered.”

Justin Martyr quoted this in his Dialog with Trypho. Why did he quote it and would anyone like to expound upon it and the possible Hebrew rendering? I think it is an awesome passage!

God bless

[mattfivefour]

I am not qualified to expound upon the Hebrew rendering. But I am willing to toss out a little bit of information.

As I am sure you know, Justin Martyr's dialog with Rabbi Tarfon (Trypho in Greek) hinged on whether a man could accept Christ and still keep the law of Moses for his salvation. The Rabbi said Jesus was chosen to be the Christ because of his obedience to the law and by like obedience a man is saved. Justin Martyr's position—and the argument he puts forth in his Dialogue—was essentially: "No, Jesus was eternally Christ. He is the one sacrifice, the perfect lamb offering. And if a man puts any faith in the law he is lost."

As the actual debate begins (chapters 8 & 9) Trypho says to Justin Martyr, "If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." To which Martyr responds: "I excuse and forgive you, my friend, for you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

As part of his extensive (it runs 142 chapters) apologia, Martyr used the parallel verse in Isaiah (Isaiah 53:7— "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." to the Jeremiah passage that you mention (Jeremiah 11:19— "But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered" as part of his argument that the Jew's own scriptures prove that Christ's blood takes away man's sin, providing forgiveness for all who accept Him. But, he says, the Jews have removed this last verse, along with others, from their scriptures. Martyr's exact wording (translated, of course) is: "And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I[was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews(for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy."

I am not sure what conditions existed in the middle of the second century AD (approx year 160) that occasioned Martyr making such a charge. My JPS, the BHS, and both my Septuagint's (Ziegler's and Lucian's Rescension) all have this full verse in them. So I am a little baffled why Justin Martyr believed the Jews had removed this particular verse. I can only presume that due to the explosive growth of the Church in the 100 or so years since it began, that some synagogues had removed OT prophecies that they felt could have been used by the Christians (or, indeed, were being used by the Christians) to prove that Jesus was the Christ.

I am not sure this answers any of your questions. Perhaps you would care to restate, brother, so I may have another run at it?

[mikhen7]

I am not qualified to expound upon the Hebrew rendering. But I am willing to toss out a little bit of information.

As I am sure you know, Justin Martyr's dialog with Rabbi Tarfon (Trypho in Greek) hinged on whether a man could accept Christ and still keep the law of Moses for his salvation. The Rabbi said Jesus was chosen to be the Christ because of his obedience to the law and by like obedience a man is saved. Justin Martyr's position—and the argument he puts forth in his Dialogue—was essentially: "No, Jesus was eternally Christ. He is the one sacrifice, the perfect lamb offering. And if a man puts any faith in the law he is lost."

As the actual debate begins (chapters 8 & 9) Trypho says to Justin Martyr, "If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." To which Martyr responds: "I excuse and forgive you, my friend, for you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

As part of his extensive (it runs 142 chapters) apologia, Martyr used the parallel verse in Isaiah (Isaiah 53:7— "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." to the Jeremiah passage that you mention (Jeremiah 11:19— "But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered" as part of his argument that the Jew's own scriptures prove that Christ's blood takes away man's sin, providing forgiveness for all who accept Him. But, he says, the Jews have removed this last verse, along with others, from their scriptures. Martyr's exact wording (translated, of course) is: "And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I[was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews(for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy."

I am not sure what conditions existed in the middle of the second century AD (approx year 160) that occasioned Martyr making such a charge. My JPS, the BHS, and both my Septuagint's (Ziegler's and Lucian's Rescension) all have this full verse in them. So I am a little baffled why Justin Martyr believed the Jews had removed this particular verse. I can only presume that due to the explosive growth of the Church in the 100 or so years since it began, that some synagogues had removed OT prophecies that they felt could have been used by the Christians (or, indeed, were being used by the Christians) to prove that Jesus was the Christ.

I am not sure this answers any of your questions. Perhaps you would care to restate, brother, so I may have another run at it?

Thanks for the excellent reply my brother. Sometimes it is just fun to dig into the Scripture, sometimes in ways we have not gone for awhile :)

As is often attested in apologetical studies the early Jewish people were indeed afraid of the spread of Christianity. Many lies were made up about Him. Some of the copies of Jeremiah and some other verses were removed from public texts in order that, as you stated, they would not be able to deduce that Jesus was the Christ. The original Hebrew that I speak of is the word "leh -em" translated "fruit" in most English versions. But the actual word is translated "Bread" in most places it is found in Scripture; "fruit" is only used once. Here is the breakdown
English Words used in KJV:

bread 237
food 21
meat 18
shewbread + <H6440> 5
loaves 5
shewbread + <H4635> 3
shewbread 2
victuals 2
eat 1
feast 1
fruit 1
provision 1
[Total Count: 297]


Justin Martyr was one of the early apologists who had to fight the battle of scriptural tampering. As we all know the resurrection of Christ was also lied about by those early Jewish scribes and Rabbi's. By going to the original use of the Hebrew he was able to show that "tree" and "wood" were synonymous and being used in connection with with "Bread" it could easily be deduced that the "Bread of life" Jesus, would be crucified on a cross made from the "wood" of a tree. These Jewish leaders must have thought that connection to be damaging enough to need to try and change or remove it. Luckily we still have the passage preserved in Jeremiah even though it is translated "fruit" in most versions, instead of "Bread." That is the answer I am looking for.

The LXX which I know exists in a few formats and is disdained by some, but was widely accepted by the early church, translates this verse Jer 11:19, "But I as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter, knew not: against me they devised an evil device, saying, Come and let us put wood into his bread, and let us utterly destroy him from off the land of the living, and let his name not be remembered any more." Gill quotes the following, De Dieu observes, that (leh -em) , translated "fruit", signifies, both in the Hebrew and Arabic languages, "flesh"; and renders it, "let us break wood upon his flesh", or body; that is, beat him with staves till they are broken upon him, and so kill him. The ancient fathers understand this of Christ, who is the bread of life, and of his crucifixion upon the wood of the cross. Jerome says it is the consent of all the churches that these things are said of Christ in the person of Jeremiah, even in this and the preceding verse, and the following one: let us cut him off from the land of the living.

I am sometimes intrigued by the amazing finds in Scripture. I do not need that verse to tell me that Jesus is the Christ for He saved me before I ever read it. But I have to give God continuous glory for the Faith of our forefathers who had the courage to face the enemy head on and fight so many battles that we in the far future may still have a sure word of prophecy by which we may hear the sure words of God. Surely, they will reap great reward. And Justin Martyr ...well, his name says it all.

Justin's conviction of the truth of Christ was so complete, that he died a martyr's death somewhere around 165 A.D. Eusebius, the early church historian, said he was denounced by the Cynic Crescens with whom he engaged in debate shortly before his death.Justin was beheaded along with six of his students.

Historian Philip Schaff sums up Justin's character and ministry this way:

He had acquired considerable classical and philosophical culture before his conversion, and then made it subservient to the defense of the faith. He was not a man of genius and accurate scholarship, but of respectable talent, extensive reading, and enormous memory. . . . He had the courage of a confessor in life and of a martyr in death. It is impossible not to admire his fearless devotion to the cause of truth and the defense of his persecuted brethren.


Thank God for His never ending Grace!!

[mattfivefour]

Excellent, bro! Thanks for the lesson. Certainly, from my Hebrew knowledge, לֶ֣חֶם is always translated as "bread". The usual word for "fruit" is פְּֽרִי־, so I am having difficulty with the translation of lechem as fruit. It's root lacham can mean any kind of food, even meat. But lechem always seems to have meant bread. The wood I understand because it can mean "tree", "wood", or "timber".

[SteveJM]

To mikhen7 and Mattfivefour, thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable study.


The tampering continues with the newer versions of the Bible.

[mattfivefour]

With some, bro. The fact is that every translator is constrained to some degree by his or her own particular theological presuppositions. Reputable translators know this, the committees they comprise are made up to these take various suppositions into account, and they are so apprehended of the sanctity of God's Word that they strive very hard to convey in modern language the exact meaning of the original manuscripts from which they work. There are a number of modern translations which are exceedingly good. Conversely there are some modern translations (and, perhaps surprisingly to some people, some older translations as well) that are absolutely horrendous in their twisting and misinterpretation of the Word.

[SteveJM]

With some, bro. The fact is that every translator is constrained to some degree by his or her own particular theological presuppositions. Reputable translators know this, the committees they comprise are made up to these take various suppositions into account, and they are so apprehended of the sanctity of God's Word that they strive very hard to convey in modern language the exact meaning of the original manuscripts from which they work. There are a number of modern translations which are exceedingly good. Conversely there are some modern translations (and, perhaps surprisingly to some people, some older translations as well) that are absolutely horrendous in their twisting and misinterpretation of the Word.

Well stated, brother. My error was in omitting the words some of, in my comment, which is what I meant. I'm usually careful to avoid that kind of mistake. My comment I'll restate,"The tampering continues with some of the newer versions of the Bible." My personal favorite is the KJV, but I'm not a KJV only believer. There are errors in the KJV, but I prefer it more than some, which are more of a commentary/paraphrase. Which modern translations do you feel are "exceedingly good?"

[GlennO]

I began my study of the Word with a paperback Amplified New Testament in 1971. Some may call that a "newer translation (it worked for me). From there I went to the NASB. Lately I found the New Living Translation to be very useful in study.

A few more translation I consult are Holman, ESV, KJV, Dake, & NKJV.

[SteveJM]

Posts #5-7 are a good example of how one omitted or added word can be critical in conveying a thought to another person. That's why most, if not all of us, would agree that it's most important that the translations we use be as accurate as possible. I think that a good parallel Bible would be very helpful. Unfortunately, we live in a time when most people are so distracted and spread thin, that few probably ever spend much time looking into the original languages, and rely almost wholly on their modern translation.

GlennO - I began my study of the Word with a paperback Amplified New Testament in 1971. Some may call that a "newer translation (it worked for me). From there I went to the NASB. Lately I found the New Living Translation to be very useful in study.

A few more translation I consult are Holman, ESV, KJV, Dake, & NKJV.

I recommended the NASB to my youngest daughter many years ago, and she's very happy with it. I do have a Living Translation in my bookcase that was my dear late grandmothers. I like to look through it and read the verses and passages that she circled or underlined. She taught Sunday school, and I remember fondly, being in her class a few times when I spent a couple of weekends at her and my grandfather's house.

P.S. For clarification, my daughter is not a child, but a married mother who has graduated from a Christian college and state university. I like the NASB myself. There are some who believe it's the most accurate translation available, others, as with most things, disagree.

[mattfivefour]

I, too, like the King James Version. It has a majesty in its language and cadence that only one other possesses. Yet, for all of its good points, it is not the most accurate translation. It contains errors introduced by the earlier translations of which it made great use— Tyndale's, the Bishops', and Jerome's Latin Vulgate which it copies word for word in major chunks.

I prefer the NASB (1995) for study and for preaching. I concur with Charles Stanley who calls it the most accurate translation of all, that accuracy being why John MacArthur says it is a favorite for bible study. The NASB maintains much of the majesty of language of the KJV (though certainly not all of it) but with a better rendering of Hebrew and Greek words and idioms and the use of better manuscripts. The NIV is also a good translation, improving on readability a little by using more dynamic than formal equivalence. I also make use of Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation in study. The NLT, from what I have seen, is a good translation for people who find simple, conversational language easier to absorb. The Amplified Bible, of course, provides much insight into Biblical passages through the use of a variety of alternate wordings that help bring out the meaning.

All of those translations are good in their own way. I use these, and many more, in my own studies. There is simply no one BEST translation (even though, to me, the NASB is at the top of the pile). But there is a worst one. That would be The Message Bible. Eugene Peterson stretched dynamic equivalence to the breaking point in creating a paraphrase (I cannot call it a translation) that supported his own theology. I refer to it as the Emergent Church Paraphrase. Whatever the message in it, you would be hard put to find the full message of God there. And what is there of it is so intertwined with bad emergent theology that by accepting a good thing you also wind up with a bad. I recommend those who truly desire to hear from God NOT use it.

That said, any of the translations I referred to above are good to use. I know much is made by some who think there is only one real translation of God's Word that it is important not in any way to alter a single word of God's Word. The problem is that this is not scriptural. Take a look at the way Jesus and the New Testament writers used Old Testament scripture. You will rarely find the NT references word for word with the OT originals. Part of this is that the NT quotations are nearly ALL from the Septuagint. Which rather shoots down modern scholars who like to condemn the Septuagint as inaccurate and uninspired. If this were true, why did God permit His Son and the Apostles to use it in the NT? The other thing you will notice from NT use of OT scripture is that they will pull from it the idea, the spirit, of the passage, not quote it literally. This is totally counter to those today who say that it is in the exact words that God's Word was spoken. No. that is not true. And the Holy Spirit made that clear in 2 Corinthians 3:6 (supported by Romans 2:29 and 7:6). Those who hew strictly to the letter (Greek γράμμα - gramma) of the Word are actually practicing bibliolatry—the worship of the words of the Bible. But God reveals that His Word is in the spirit (Greek πνεῦμα - pneuma) of the words, not in the letter.

Anyway, bro, I hope this helps and that it answers your question.

God bless.

[mikhen7]

I, too, like the King James Version. It has a majesty in its language and cadence that only one other possesses. Yet, for all of its good points, it is not the most accurate translation. It contains errors introduced by the earlier translations of which it made great use— Tyndale's, the Bishops', and Jerome's Latin Vulgate which it copies word for word in major chunks.

I prefer the NASB (1995) for study and for preaching. I concur with Charles Stanley who calls it the most accurate translation of all, that accuracy being why John MacArthur says it is a favorite for bible study. The NASB maintains much of the majesty of language of the KJV (though certainly not all of it) but with a better rendering of Hebrew and Greek words and idioms and the use of better manuscripts. The NIV is also a good translation, improving on readability a little by using more dynamic than formal equivalence. I also make use of Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation in study. The NLT, from what I have seen, is a good translation for people who find simple, conversational language easier to absorb. The Amplified Bible, of course, provides much insight into Biblical passages through the use of a variety of alternate wordings that help bring out the meaning.

All of those translations are good in their own way. I use these, and many more, in my own studies. There is simply no one BEST translation (even though, to me, the NASB is at the top of the pile). But there is a worst one. That would be The Message Bible. Eugene Peterson stretched dynamic equivalence to the breaking point in creating a paraphrase (I cannot call it a translation) that supported his own theology. I refer to it as the Emergent Church Paraphrase. Whatever the message in it, you would be hard put to find the full message of God there. And what is there of it is so intertwined with bad emergent theology that by accepting a good thing you also wind up with a bad. I recommend those who truly desire to hear from God NOT use it.

That said, any of the translations I referred to above are good to use. I know much is made by some who think there is only one real translation of God's Word that it is important not in any way to alter a single word of God's Word. The problem is that this is not scriptural. Take a look at the way Jesus and the New Testament writers used Old Testament scripture. You will rarely find the NT references word for word with the OT originals. Part of this is that the NT quotations are nearly ALL from the Septuagint. Which rather shoots down modern scholars who like to condemn the Septuagint as inaccurate and uninspired. If this were true, why did God permit His Son and the Apostles to use it in the NT? The other thing you will notice from NT use of OT scripture is that they will pull from it the idea, the spirit, of the passage, not quote it literally. This is totally counter to those today who say that it is in the exact words that God's Word was spoken. No. that is not true. And the Holy Spirit made that clear in 2 Corinthians 3:6 (supported by Romans 2:29 and 7:6). Those who hew strictly to the letter (Greek γράμμα - gramma) of the Word are actually practicing bibliolatry—the worship of the words of the Bible. But God reveals that His Word is in the spirit (Greek πνεῦμα - pneuma) of the words, not in the letter.

Anyway, bro, I hope this helps and that it answers your question.

God bless.

Awesome Word Bro!!!! Praise God!!!