The Old Testament in the New

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew has the singular 'My Son', which is the Hebrew; the Septuagint (Brenton) has the plural 'his children'. This is the reverse of Hebrews 10 and Acts 15: here the evangelist's wording agrees with the Hebrew against the Greek, and the Greek reading would not have served his purpose at all.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Only the second half of the verse is quoted; 'When Israel was a child, I loved him, and' is omitted, along with the explicit identification of the son as Israel.
• ◆referent shift. 'My son' in Hosea is the nation Israel at the exodus; Matthew applies it to Jesus as a child returning from Egypt.

In its own setting

Hosea 11 is God's lament over Israel, told as a father's memory of a child. He loved Israel, called him out of Egypt, taught Ephraim to walk, fed him, and was repaid with Baal worship. The 'son' is unmistakably the nation, and the sentence looks back to the exodus, not forward to anything; it is the opening of an indictment, not a prediction.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew attaches the words to Joseph's flight into Egypt and return after Herod's death, saying this 'fulfilled' what the Lord spoke through the prophet. He reads Jesus as re-living Israel's story: called out of Egypt as God's Son, then tested in the wilderness (chapter 4). The claim is one of pattern and identity, not of a forecast now coming true.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew follows the Hebrew (or a Greek revision toward the Hebrew), and uses Hosea typologically: Jesus embodies Israel as God's Son. (The singular 'Son' matches the Hebrew; the surrounding narrative (Egypt, wilderness, forty days) deliberately retraces Israel's story.)
• ◆Matthew's 'fulfil' language should be read as the filling-out of a pattern, not the confirmation of a prediction. (Hosea 11:1 is retrospective in its own context and was not read as messianic before Matthew.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew's 'potter' agrees with the Hebrew against the Greek, which has 'furnace' (the Greek translator read a similar-looking Hebrew word); so on the one decisive noun Matthew sides with the Hebrew. But the rest of his sentence matches neither: the subject is 'they' not 'I', the silver is 'the price set on Him by the people of Israel', it is 'given for the potter's field', and it ends 'as the Lord had commanded me', none of which is in Zechariah in either language.

What changed

• ◆substitution. The citation is attributed to 'Jeremiah the prophet' although the words are Zechariah's; Jeremiah contributes the field-purchase and potter/innocent-blood/burial motifs at most.
• ◆substitution. First person becomes third: Zechariah's 'I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them' becomes 'They took the thirty pieces of silver ... and they gave them', so the prophet's act becomes the chief priests' act.
• ◆substitution. 'this magnificent price at which they valued me' becomes 'the price set on Him by the people of Israel', shifting the one valued from the prophet-shepherd to Jesus and naming Israel as the valuer.
• ◆addition. 'the potter's field' and 'as the Lord had commanded me' are added; Zechariah has a potter in the temple but no field and no command to buy one (compare Jeremiah 32:6-9).
• ◆conflation. Zechariah 11:12-13 is merged with Jeremiah's field and potter narratives into a single sentence presented as one prophecy.
• ◆referent shift. The wage paid to reject God's shepherd (Zechariah) becomes the blood money paid for Jesus and its disposal in a burial ground.

In its own setting

In Zechariah 11 the prophet acts out the role of a shepherd whom the flock (Israel and its leaders) despise. He asks for his wages and is paid thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave in Exodus 21:32; the LORD tells him, with heavy irony, to throw this 'magnificent price' to the potter in the temple, and he does. It is a sign-act of a people dismissing the shepherd God sent them, and the covenant staff is broken. There is no field, no burial, and no purchase.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew has just told how the priests, unable to put Judas's returned silver in the treasury because it was blood money, bought the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. He then declares the whole sequence, thirty pieces, a potter, the temple, and now a field bought with the price of innocent blood, to be the fulfilment of what 'Jeremiah' spoke. He rewrites Zechariah's sentence so that its subjects and objects match the priests, the money, and Jesus, and names Jeremiah because the field and the blood-stained burial ground are Jeremiah's images.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew names Jeremiah deliberately because the composite draws on Jeremiah 19 and 32 as well as Zechariah 11, and naming the more prominent prophet of a combined citation was accepted practice. (Parallel with Mark 1:2 ('Isaiah' for Malachi plus Isaiah); the field, the potter's jar, the innocent blood, and the burial place all come from Jeremiah, not Zechariah.)
• ◆'Jeremiah' is a slip, either Matthew's or an early copyist's; a few manuscripts omit the name or read 'Zechariah' or 'Isaiah'. (Augustine and Origen already discussed the difficulty; the variants show ancient readers felt it, though the majority and best witnesses read 'Jeremiah'.)
• ◆'Jeremiah' names the scroll of the prophets as a collection, since some ancient orderings placed Jeremiah first among the latter prophets. (A rabbinic ordering (Baba Bathra 14b) begins the prophets with Jeremiah; the theory explains the name but has no other New Testament parallel.)
• ◆Matthew is quoting a Jeremiah text no longer extant, or an apocryphal Jeremiah tradition. (Jerome reports seeing such a passage in a Hebrew text used by the Nazarenes; nothing survives to check it against.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Jeremiah 32:6-9: Jeremiah buys a field and weighs out silver at the Lord's word; the nearest Jeremiah text to 'they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord had commanded me'. Zechariah has no field.
• ◆Jeremiah 19:1-11: A potter, the Valley of Ben-hinnom, 'the blood of the innocent', a place renamed for slaughter, and burial until there is no room: the cluster of motifs Matthew's Judas narrative (27:4-8) shares with Jeremiah, which is the usual explanation for the name.

Which text, and how we can tell

In English the two Old Testament texts look alike, and that hides the most discussed word in this whole subject. Isaiah's Hebrew word is almah, a young woman of marriageable age; Hebrew has a separate word, bethulah, when virginity itself is the point. The Greek translators chose parthenos, which does mean virgin, and Matthew's Greek has parthenos, the Septuagint's word. BSB renders the Hebrew as virgin too, so a reader of the two English columns cannot see the choice, but it is there, and Matthew's text stands on the Greek side of it. The other visible difference is who does the naming: the Hebrew has the mother (she will call), the Greek has Ahaz (you will call), and Matthew has a plural (they will call), which matches neither exactly and is usually taken as Matthew's own adjustment.

What changed

• ◆substitution. The Hebrew almah (young woman) stands behind the Greek parthenos (virgin); Matthew's quotation carries the Greek word, and BSB's English hides the difference by rendering the Hebrew as virgin as well.
• ◆tense or person. Who names the child shifts: she will call (Hebrew), you will call (Greek, addressed to Ahaz), they will call (Matthew).
• ◆addition. Matthew adds a translation of the name, which means, God with us, for readers who do not know Hebrew; it is his gloss, not part of Isaiah.

In its own setting

In Isaiah 7, King Ahaz of Judah is terrified because two enemy kings are threatening Jerusalem. The Lord tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refuses out of false piety. Isaiah then announces that God will give a sign anyway: a child will be born and named Immanuel, and before that child is old enough to know right from wrong, the land of the two threatening kings will be laid waste. In its immediate setting, the sign is primarily about the near future: it promises Ahaz that the threat he fears will not last, and the child's name, Immanuel, meaning God with us, is a pledge of God's presence and protection for Judah in that crisis.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this verse to explain the virgin birth of Jesus, presenting it as the fulfillment of what the Lord had spoken through the prophet, connecting Isaiah's ancient sign to Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit. Matthew treats the child's name as pointing beyond its original eighth-century setting to Jesus himself, and he adds an explanation of the name's meaning, God with us, so that his Greek-speaking readers grasp its significance for who Jesus is. Matthew is not simply repeating history; he is asserting that the ultimate, fullest meaning of Isaiah's sign was Jesus. This is a clear case of Matthew reading a near-term sign for Ahaz as also carrying a deeper, long-range fulfillment centered on the Messiah.

Where readers differ

• ◆Isaiah's sign had a meaning in Ahaz's own day (a child born soon, before whose maturity the two threatening kings would be gone), and Matthew applies the verse typologically to Jesus as its fuller fulfilment. (Isaiah 7:15-16 ties the child's growth to a near-term political timetable; almah does not by itself assert virginity; Matthew's fulfilment formula elsewhere treats past events as patterns.)
• ◆Isaiah's oracle refers directly to the virgin birth of the Messiah, and the Greek translators' parthenos preserves the intended sense rather than adding to it. (Almah in its other biblical uses refers to unmarried young women who would be presumed virgins; the Septuagint's choice predates Christianity and so cannot be a Christian reading imposed on the text.)
• ◆Both are true in sequence: a child in Isaiah's day and a greater fulfilment in Jesus, with the Greek word making the second reading explicit. (A common mediating reading; it accounts for both the eighth-century context and the New Testament use, at the cost of asserting a double reference the text does not spell out.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Both the Hebrew and the Greek say Bethlehem is small or few in number, but Matthew's quotation says the opposite: it is by no means least. This is not a case of following one text tradition over the other; Matthew's wording departs from both. It reads like a deliberate turn of phrase, taking Micah's point about smallness and turning it into a statement about the town's true significance, rather than a translation choice between Hebrew and Greek.

What changed

• ◆substitution. Micah calls Bethlehem small or few in number; Matthew's quotation says it is by no means least, reversing the sense of the description.
• ◆substitution. Micah's phrase Ephrathah (BSB) or house of Ephratha (Brenton) becomes in the land of Judah in Matthew.
• ◆substitution. Micah's clans (MT) or thousands (LXX) becomes rulers in Matthew.
• ◆conflation. The phrase who will be the shepherd of My people Israel echoes 2 Samuel 5:2 (You will shepherd My people Israel), which Matthew blends into the Micah quotation rather than quoting Micah's One to be ruler over Israel alone.
• ◆omission. Matthew's quotation drops the final line of Micah 5:2, One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity (or in Brenton, his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity).

In its own setting

Micah 5:1-5 addresses a besieged Jerusalem (daughter of troops) under threat from an enemy, later associated with Assyria in the passage itself. The judge of Israel is struck on the cheek, a picture of humiliation and defeat for the current ruling order. Against this bleak scene, the prophet announces that a ruler will arise from Bethlehem Ephrathah, a town so small it is not even counted among the significant clans or thousands of Judah. This coming ruler's origins are described as being of old, from the days of eternity, marking him out as no ordinary king. He will shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord and bring security and peace, even extending his greatness to the ends of the earth.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 2, Herod asks the chief priests and scribes where the Christ was to be born, and they answer by quoting Micah 5:2 in this adapted form. The quotation identifies Bethlehem as the specific, prophesied birthplace of the Messiah, directly answering the plot's question and setting up the wise men's journey there. By folding in language from 2 Samuel 5:2 (concerning David becoming shepherd-king over Israel), the quotation ties the coming ruler explicitly to the shepherd-king role David held, reinforcing that this child is the promised heir to David's throne. The change from small to by no means least shifts the emphasis from Bethlehem's physical insignificance to its unexpected honor as the Messiah's birthplace. The omitted line about the ruler's eternal origins is not used here, though Matthew's Gospel develops the theme of Jesus' unique identity elsewhere in its own way.

Where readers differ

• ◆The chief priests and scribes (or Matthew, recording their answer) paraphrased Micah freely, combining it with 2 Samuel 5:2 to draw out its full messianic and Davidic meaning, a recognized practice in Jewish teaching of the period. (The clear presence of shepherd language from 2 Samuel 5:2 alongside Micah's wording shows intentional blending of texts, a technique attested elsewhere in Jewish and early Christian exposition of Scripture.)
• ◆The reversal from small to by no means least reflects a targum-like interpretive rendering, common in synagogue paraphrase traditions, meant to bring out the irony that this insignificant place gains greatness through the ruler born there, rather than being an error or a different manuscript reading. (No known Hebrew or Greek manuscript of Micah reads by no means least; the change looks purposeful rather than a variant text, since it inverts rather than merely rewords the original statement.)

Also drawn on

• ◆2 Samuel 5:2

Which text, and how we can tell

Two details put Matthew on the Greek side. In the Hebrew, in the wilderness belongs to the command (prepare the way in the wilderness, make a highway in the desert, two parallel lines); in the Greek it belongs to the voice (a voice crying in the wilderness), and Matthew has it there, which suits John preaching in the desert. And Matthew has paths, the Greek word, where the Hebrew has a single highway. The ending is Matthew's own: both traditions say the way is for our God, and Matthew writes for Him, so that the Lord whose way John prepares can be read as Jesus. Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4 have the same form.

What changed

• ◆reordering. In the wilderness moves from the command (Hebrew) to the voice (Greek and Matthew), so it describes where the voice cries rather than where the road is built.
• ◆substitution. A straight highway (Hebrew) becomes straight paths, the Greek rendering.
• ◆substitution. For our God (both traditions) becomes for Him, letting the Lord of the verse be Jesus; this is the evangelist's change, not a difference between Hebrew and Greek.
• ◆truncation. Only verse 3 is quoted; the valleys lifted and mountains lowered in verses 4-5 are left out.

In its own setting

Isaiah 40 opens a new section of the book, shifting from oracles of judgment to a message of comfort for God's people after their exile. The prophet announces that Jerusalem's hard labor and punishment are over and her sin has been pardoned. In this setting a voice calls for a road to be prepared in the wilderness or desert, the kind of image used when a king or dignitary was coming and a highway had to be built or cleared for his arrival. The valleys will be raised and the mountains lowered so the path is level, and the result will be that the glory of the LORD is revealed for everyone to see. It is a promise that God himself is coming to lead his people out of exile and back home.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew applies Isaiah's voice of one calling directly to John the Baptist, identifying him as the person Isaiah was describing centuries in advance. John's preaching in the wilderness of Judea, calling people to repentance ahead of Jesus, is presented as the fulfillment of Isaiah's announcement that a way must be prepared for the Lord. By quoting only the first line and stopping before the parts about valleys and mountains, Matthew keeps the focus tightly on John's role as forerunner rather than on the fuller picture of restoration in Isaiah 40. The shift of the phrase in the wilderness onto the voice itself (rather than the road) conveniently matches John's actual location, out in the wilderness, which strengthens the connection for Matthew's readers. The word Him in place of our God fits Matthew's larger theme throughout his gospel, that Jesus is the LORD whose way is being prepared.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew quotes the Greek Isaiah and applies it to John the Baptist as the forerunner, with for Him as his own adaptation. (The placement of in the wilderness and the word paths match the Septuagint; all three Synoptic Gospels share the form, including the for Him ending.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Jesus' sentence in Matthew is the Septuagint's sentence. Two things show it. The Hebrew has no noun where English has word: it says man lives on everything that comes from the mouth of the LORD, and both BSB and the Greek translators supplied word to make English and Greek read naturally; Matthew's Greek has the same supplied word as the Septuagint. And the Hebrew has the divine name, LORD, where the Greek and Matthew have God. Neither changes the meaning, but they mark which text Matthew is carrying.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Only the second half of the verse is quoted; the manna and the forty years of humbling that lead up to it are left out.
• ◆substitution. The LORD (the divine name, Hebrew) reads God, as in the Greek.
• ◆other. The word word is supplied by the Greek translators and carried by Matthew; the Hebrew says everything that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

In its own setting

Deuteronomy 8 is part of Moses' address to Israel as they prepare to enter the Promised Land after forty years of wandering. Moses reminds them that God humbled and tested them in the wilderness by feeding them manna, a food they had never known before, precisely so they would learn a lesson: that human life ultimately depends not merely on bread or ordinary provision, but on whatever God speaks and provides. The manna itself was a lesson in trusting God's word and provision day by day. The chapter goes on to warn Israel not to forget the LORD once they enter a land of abundance, since prosperity brings the temptation to think they sustained themselves by their own strength.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 4, Jesus has fasted forty days in the wilderness and is tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread. Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, applying Israel's wilderness lesson to His own wilderness testing. Just as Israel had to learn that life depends on God's word and provision rather than bread alone, Jesus asserts the same truth to resist the temptation to satisfy His hunger by His own power apart from the Father's timing and word. The connection between Israel's forty years and Jesus' forty days is deliberate, presenting Jesus as facing and passing the same kind of test Israel faced. Jesus does not need the surrounding verses about manna to make his point, since the quoted line alone captures the principle he needs.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew quotes the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 8:3, and the sense matches the Hebrew in every respect that matters. (Word-for-word agreement between Matthew 4:4 and the Greek Deuteronomy, including the supplied noun and God for the divine name.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew and Greek agree closely here, both including the phrase about guarding or keeping you in all your ways. The devil's quotation in Matthew drops that phrase entirely, moving straight from He will command His angels concerning You to they will lift You up in their hands. Since the missing words are present in both the Hebrew and Greek traditions, this is not a case of following one text tradition over another; it is an omission shared against both. Where the quotation does overlap with the source, it matches the wording of the Berean Standard Bible's rendering of both Psalm 91 and Brenton's Greek Psalm 90 closely enough that no clear preference for either tradition can be shown from word choice alone.

What changed

• ◆omission. The clause to guard you in all your ways (Hebrew) or to keep thee in all thy ways (Greek) is left out of the devil's quotation in Matthew 4:6.

In its own setting

Psalm 91 is a psalm of trust, assuring someone who has made the LORD their refuge and dwelling place that no evil or plague will touch them. The verses quoted promise that God will command His angels to guard this person in all their ways, lifting them up so they do not even stumble on a stone. The context surrounding these verses extends the promise further: the one who trusts God will tread safely on dangerous creatures like lions and serpents. The whole psalm describes the security of someone who trusts God amid ordinary dangers of life, not a guarantee against deliberately courting danger or testing God.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew's account, the devil quotes this psalm to Jesus during the temptation in the wilderness, urging Him to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. The devil applies a promise meant for someone walking faithfully through ordinary dangers to a scenario of deliberately created danger, in effect asking Jesus to test God by manufacturing a crisis rather than trusting God through one. By omitting the phrase to guard you in all your ways, the devil strips out the psalm's own framing that this protection is for someone walking in God's ways, not one leaping outside them. Jesus responds not by disputing the quotation's wording but by countering with another Scripture (not given here) that forbids testing God, showing that a true reading of one text must be held together with the rest of Scripture.

Where readers differ

• ◆The omission is a deliberate narrative device showing the devil misquoting or misapplying Scripture by dropping an inconvenient qualifying phrase. (The phrase to guard you in all your ways is present in both the Hebrew Masoretic tradition and the Greek Septuagint tradition (as shown in Brenton), so its absence in the devil's quotation cannot be explained by a different underlying text; it must be an intentional shortening for rhetorical effect within Matthew's narrative.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament) and the Greek Septuagint (as reflected in Brenton) both give the same basic command: do not test the Lord your God. Jesus' wording matches the substance of both. The only differences are that Jesus drops the closing phrase about Massah/the temptation and adjusts the verb form, which are wording matters, not differences between the Hebrew and Greek traditions. So there is no tradition to choose between here; both agree, and Jesus follows that shared sense.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the command itself, Do not put the Lord your God to the test, and leaves off the second half of the verse, as you tested Him at Massah (BSB) / as ye tempted him in the temptation (Brenton).
• ◆other. The BSB Old Testament renders the verb as test in a plain command form (Do not test), while the BSB New Testament renders Jesus' quotation with put to the test; this is a difference of English wording in the same translation, not a difference between Hebrew and Greek.

In its own setting

Deuteronomy 6 is part of Moses' address to Israel as they prepare to enter the Promised Land. Moses has just urged the people to fear the Lord, keep His commandments, and not chase after the gods of the surrounding nations. In this setting, Do not test the LORD your God as you tested Him at Massah recalls an earlier incident, referred to elsewhere in the text as Massah, where the people doubted God's presence and provision and demanded proof. The command warns Israel not to repeat that pattern of doubting God and demanding He prove Himself. It is embedded in a larger call to wholehearted obedience so that the people will do what is right and good and prosper in the land God is giving them.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 4, this command is the third and final answer Jesus gives to the devil during His wilderness temptation. The devil has just urged Jesus to throw Himself from the temple, appealing to a promise of angelic protection, essentially inviting Jesus to force God's hand and prove His care. Jesus responds by applying Moses' warning to Himself: He refuses to demand a sign or test God's faithfulness on His own terms. By quoting only the core command and not the historical reference to Massah, Jesus states the principle simply and directly, treating it as a timeless rule of trust in God rather than retelling the old story behind it. The citation functions as a direct rebuke of the temptation, showing that Jesus roots His obedience in Israel's own Scriptures.

Which text, and how we can tell

Both traditions say fear the Lord your God and serve him, and both Jesus and the Greek add only, which the Hebrew does not have (BSB supplies it in English; the Hebrew reads simply and him you shall serve). Jesus' quotation also has worship where both texts, as usually read, have fear. The word only points to the Greek; worship is found in some Greek copies of Deuteronomy (the manuscript Alexandrinus reads it), though those copies may have been adjusted toward Matthew rather than the other way round. Luke 4:8 has the same form.

What changed

• ◆substitution. Fear the LORD your God (Hebrew) and Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God (Greek) becomes Worship the Lord your God in Jesus' quotation, sharpening the point against Satan's request for worship.
• ◆addition. Only is present in the Greek and in Matthew but not in the Hebrew, which says and him you shall serve; BSB's English adds it as well.
• ◆omission. The clause about taking oaths in His name (and cleaving to Him and swearing by His name in the Greek) is dropped, since it is not relevant to the temptation at hand.

In its own setting

Deuteronomy 6:10-15 is part of Moses' instruction to Israel just before they enter the Promised Land. Moses warns that once the people enjoy houses, wells, and vineyards they did not build, dig, or plant, they will be tempted to forget the LORD who freed them from slavery in Egypt. In that setting he commands them to fear the LORD, serve Him only, and swear only by His name, warning against following the gods of the surrounding peoples. The passage ends with a warning that God is a jealous God who will not tolerate His people going after other gods, on pain of being wiped off the land.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 4, Satan has just offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus will worship him. Jesus refuses by quoting the command that Israel is to serve God only, applying words originally given to the nation as a whole to His own personal act of resistance in the wilderness. He answers a temptation to worship a false object of worship (Satan) with the command to worship and serve the true God alone. The line about swearing oaths, irrelevant to this temptation, is left out, and the citation is tightened to the point directly needed: exclusive worship and service belong to God alone.

Where readers differ

• ◆Jesus is quoting the same Deuteronomy command but rephrasing fear as worship because worship is the specific issue in the temptation (Satan just asked to be worshiped), so the shift is an intentional, situational paraphrase rather than a different manuscript tradition. (The immediate narrative context in Matthew 4 concerns an offer of worship, so a wording that highlights worship fits the scene, even though it differs from the fear language in both the BSB's Hebrew-based rendering and Brenton's Greek rendering.)
• ◆The wording may reflect a Greek Old Testament manuscript tradition or liturgical form available to Matthew that already read worship. (Some Greek manuscripts of Deuteronomy (Alexandrinus among them) do read worship here; but such readings may have been conformed to the Gospel text by later copyists, so the evidence cuts both ways.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Both the Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament) and the Greek Septuagint say essentially the same thing here: a man may write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus is not citing either text word for word; he is compressing the substance of the law into a short summary. Since Hebrew and Greek agree in meaning, there is no tradition for Jesus to be choosing between on this point.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus reduces the long conditional sentence of Deuteronomy 24:1 (a man marries, she becomes displeasing, he finds indecency, he writes, hands it to her, sends her away) into a short general statement: whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.
• ◆referent shift. Deuteronomy 24:1 describes a specific procedure and reason (indecency) for one particular case; Matthew 5:31 turns it into a general rule people cited (it has also been said), stripped of the reason clause, so that Jesus can respond to it in verse 32.
• ◆omission. The clause about the man finding some indecency in her, which gives the original law's grounds for divorce, is left out of the quotation entirely.

In its own setting

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not a command to divorce but a law regulating what happens after a divorce has already occurred. It says that if a man divorces his wife by giving her a certificate and sending her away, and she remarries, her first husband may not take her back as his wife once she has been defiled by that second marriage. The point of the passage is to prevent a specific abuse (a husband using his ex-wife as a pawn between marriages), not to establish the grounds or procedure for divorce as a general topic. The certificate of divorce is mentioned as an existing practice, assumed rather than instituted here. The passage ends by calling the act of remarrying a former, now-defiled wife an abomination to the Lord.

What the New Testament does with it

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes this popular summary of Deuteronomy 24:1 as something his hearers had heard taught, introduced with the phrase it has also been said. He is not correcting the wording of Moses but responding to how the certificate-of-divorce provision was being used or understood in his day, apparently as a fairly easy permission to divorce. In the next verse (5:32, not given here) he sharpens the teaching by restricting legitimate grounds and warning about causing the divorced woman to commit adultery in a new marriage. So Jesus takes a procedural detail from Deuteronomy (write a certificate) and uses it as the jumping-off point for a stricter ethical teaching about marriage, rather than as a proof text about the mechanics of divorce itself.

Which text, and how we can tell

Jesus is not quoting a single verse word for word but summarizing a theme that runs through several Old Testament commands about oaths and vows. The wording Do not break your oath is closer in idea to the language of not breaking one's word found in Numbers 30, while fulfill your vows to the Lord echoes the general duty to keep vows found in places like Numbers 30 and Deuteronomy. Neither the Hebrew (MT) nor the Greek (LXX) of Leviticus 19:12 supplies this exact phrasing, since that verse is about not swearing falsely by God's name, not about breaking or fulfilling oaths in general. This looks like a summary of biblical teaching on oaths rather than a direct translation of one text.

What changed

• ◆conflation. Jesus blends the idea of not swearing falsely from Leviticus 19:12 with the idea of not breaking one's word and fulfilling vows from Numbers 30:2, producing a summary statement rather than a quotation of either verse alone.
• ◆substitution. Leviticus 19:12 speaks of not swearing falsely by God's name and so profaning it, but the saying in Matthew 5:33 speaks instead of not breaking an oath and fulfilling vows, which shifts the focus from misusing God's name to keeping one's word once given.
• ◆other. The phrase to the Lord in Matthew 5:33 matches the wording in Numbers 30:2 (a vow to the LORD) rather than Leviticus 19:12, which speaks of swearing by My name.

In its own setting

Leviticus 19:12 sits within a list of practical commands for holy living given to Israel, covering honesty, fair treatment of neighbors, and care for the vulnerable. The specific command is not to swear falsely using God's name, since doing so would treat his name as common or cheap, in other words profane it. This law protects the seriousness of oaths taken in God's name and by extension the honor of God himself. Numbers 30:2, the secondary source Jesus's summary also draws on, deals with vows: once a man vows something to the Lord, he is bound to keep his word exactly. Together these texts teach that both invoking God's name in an oath and making a vow to him are serious acts that must not be treated lightly or broken.

What the New Testament does with it

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cites this teaching about oaths and vows as something the ancients were told, only to go further in the verses that follow (not shown here) and tell his listeners not to swear oaths at all, but simply to let their yes be yes and their no be no. He is not correcting a mistranslation or misquoting the Old Testament; he is summarizing the broad teaching found in the Law about the seriousness of oaths and vows in order to set up a stricter standard for his followers. By combining the sense of Leviticus 19:12 and Numbers 30:2 into one short saying, Jesus captures the underlying principle, that a person's word made before God must be trustworthy, and uses it as the starting point for his own more demanding instruction on truthful speech.

Where readers differ

• ◆Jesus is summarizing Leviticus 19:12 alone, using free paraphrase rather than pulling in Numbers 30 as a separate source. (Leviticus 19:12 is the clearest single verse about oaths and God's name, and it is reasonable to see Matthew 5:33 as a loose restatement of it without needing to posit a second source text.)
• ◆Jesus is deliberately combining language from Leviticus 19:12 and Numbers 30:2 (and possibly other vow texts) into a single summary of biblical teaching on oaths and vows. (The specific wording about not breaking one's word and fulfilling vows to the Lord matches the language and concern of Numbers 30:2 more closely than it matches Leviticus 19:12, which never mentions vows or breaking one's word directly.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Numbers 30:2

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament) and the Greek Septuagint (Brenton) say exactly the same thing here: eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Jesus quotes the first two clauses of this list word for word, so there is no textual divergence to track. Whatever Jesus is doing in the Sermon on the Mount, it is not a matter of following one manuscript tradition over another.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the first two of the six paired clauses in Exodus 21:24-25 (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and leaves out hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe.

In its own setting

Exodus 21:22-25 is part of the case laws given to Israel at Sinai, addressing a specific scenario: men fighting accidentally injure a pregnant woman. If the child is born early with no further harm, a fine is paid. But if serious injury results, the law sets the principle of proportional compensation, a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and so on through hand, foot, burn, wound, and stripe. This is instruction for judges and courts settling compensation for injury, not a personal rule for how individuals should treat those who wrong them. The principle (sometimes called lex talionis) was meant to limit revenge by requiring the punishment to match, not exceed, the harm done, and to be carried out through legal process rather than personal retaliation.

What the New Testament does with it

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cites this law as something his hearers have heard taught, using it as the second example in a series (You have heard that it was said) before contrasting it with his own teaching. He quotes only the opening phrase, eye for eye and tooth for tooth, as shorthand for the whole principle rather than reciting the full list. Immediately after this quotation (in the verses that follow, not printed here), Jesus tells his listeners not to resist an evil person but to turn the other cheek. He is not declaring the original law wrong for its intended purpose (limiting court-ordered punishment) but addressing how it had come to be used or understood, apparently as license for personal retaliation, and calling his followers to a different personal ethic of non-retaliation.

Where readers differ

• ◆Jesus is correcting a popular misuse of the law, in which a principle meant to limit legal punishment had been stretched to justify personal revenge; he is not overturning the law itself but restoring its proper scope while calling disciples to a higher personal standard. (The Old Testament context (Exodus 21:22-25) explicitly concerns court-supervised compensation for injury, not personal vengeance, so Jesus's teaching about turning the other cheek addresses personal conduct, a different sphere than the law's original legal setting.)
• ◆Jesus is presenting a new, higher ethical standard that intentionally moves beyond and supersedes the Old Testament principle, not merely correcting a misapplication of it. (The formula You have heard that it was said, followed by but I tell you, is used elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount to introduce teaching that goes beyond the literal demands of the law (for example on anger and lust), suggesting Jesus is doing more than clarifying scope.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The half of the saying that actually comes from Leviticus, love your neighbor, matches both the Hebrew-based BSB and the Brenton translation of the Greek Old Testament closely; both say to love your neighbor as yourself. There is no meaningful wording difference between the two traditions here, so this part of the quotation does not favor either one over the other. The second half of the saying, hate your enemy, has no source at all in Leviticus 19 or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the phrase love your neighbor from Leviticus 19:18 and drops the rest of the verse, including as yourself and I am the LORD, along with the surrounding instructions in verses 17-18 about not hating your brother, rebuking him directly, and not seeking revenge or bearing a grudge.
• ◆addition. Jesus adds a second saying, hate your enemy, which does not appear anywhere in Leviticus 19 or in any Old Testament passage. This appears to be a popular saying or teaching of Jesus' day, not a quotation of Scripture.

In its own setting

Leviticus 19 is part of a larger set of laws given to Israel calling them to be holy because the LORD their God is holy. Verses 17-18 form a short unit about how to treat a fellow Israelite: do not hate your brother in your heart, but rebuke him directly so you do not share in his guilt, and do not take revenge or hold a grudge, but love your neighbor as yourself. The command to love your neighbor as yourself sits inside this practical guidance about handling conflict within the community without resorting to hatred or payback. The neighbor in view is primarily a fellow member of the covenant people, though other parts of Leviticus extend care to the foreigner living among them. The refrain I am the LORD grounds the command in God's own character and authority.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus is in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, working through a series of contrasts that begin with You have heard that it was said. In each case he cites a popular understanding, sometimes rooted in Scripture and sometimes not, and then deepens or corrects it with his own teaching, introduced by but I tell you. Here he pairs the genuine command to love your neighbor with a saying to hate your enemy, which was apparently a way some people summarized or extended the law's boundaries, treating love as owed only to insiders. Jesus is not quoting Leviticus 19:18 as if it said to hate your enemy; he is naming a common but mistaken inference people had drawn alongside the real command. He then overturns that inference in the verses that follow (not printed here) by teaching his listeners to love their enemies as well. The quotation of love your neighbor is accurate to Leviticus, but it is quoted in truncated form and put into a context where it is paired with words Scripture never says.

Where readers differ

• ◆Hate your enemy is not a biblical quotation at all; it is a summary of popular teaching or tradition (perhaps drawn from other Jewish teachers of the day, or a natural but wrong inference from limiting neighbor to insiders) that Jesus cites in order to reject it. (No Old Testament text, in Hebrew or Greek, contains any command to hate one's enemy; Leviticus 19:17-18 explicitly warns against harboring hatred and taking revenge. The nearest ancient parallel is outside the Bible, in the rule of the Qumran community, which required its members to hate the sons of darkness.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew's wording He took up our infirmities matches the Hebrew-based BSB reading took up our infirmities, not the Greek's he bears our sins. The Greek (Brenton) speaks of sins and being pained, while both the Hebrew tradition and Matthew speak of infirmities and something carried away. The one difference from the Hebrew tradition is that Matthew says carried our diseases where the Hebrew-based BSB says carried our sorrows. This shift from sorrows to diseases fits Matthew's context, since he has just described Jesus healing the sick, so most scholars see Matthew as translating or paraphrasing the Hebrew term in a way suited to physical healing rather than following the Greek translation.

What changed

• ◆substitution. Where the Hebrew-based text says carried our sorrows, Matthew has carried our diseases, matching his story of Jesus healing physical illness.

In its own setting

Isaiah 53 is part of the prophet's description of a coming servant of the LORD who suffers on behalf of others. The servant is described as despised, rejected, and acquainted with grief, someone with no outward attraction to draw people to him. Verse 4 says he took up the people's infirmities and sorrows, yet onlookers wrongly assumed his suffering was punishment from God for his own sin. The following verses make clear the suffering was instead for the transgressions and iniquities of others, bringing them peace and healing. The passage as a whole speaks of vicarious suffering, one person bearing the weight of what others deserved.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this verse right after describing Jesus healing many who were sick or demon-possessed in Capernaum. He presents Jesus' acts of physical healing as a fulfillment of Isaiah's words about the servant taking up infirmities and carrying diseases. Unlike Isaiah 53 in its fuller context, which is often read as pointing toward the servant bearing sin and guilt (especially in the verses just after this one), Matthew's application here is specifically about bodily healing, not forgiveness of sin. This is a distinct use from, say, Paul's or Peter's use of Isaiah 53 elsewhere, where the emphasis falls on the servant's suffering for sins. Matthew is showing that Jesus' compassionate healings are also part of what Isaiah foresaw the servant would do.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is offering his own translation of the Hebrew term (rendered sorrows in the BSB) that he understood to fit better with physical illness in this context, since the underlying Hebrew word can cover both grief and physical pain. (The Hebrew term behind carried our sorrows has a range of meaning including pain and suffering, both physical and emotional, so Matthew's choice of diseases falls within the acceptable range of that word rather than being an invented substitution.)
• ◆Matthew deliberately shifted the sense of Isaiah 53:4 from bearing sin and grief to bearing physical illness, applying the verse typologically to Jesus' healing ministry as one dimension of the servant's larger work, distinct from the atonement for sin described later in the chapter. (The wider context of Isaiah 53 (verses 5-6) clearly moves toward substitutionary suffering for iniquity and transgression, which most interpreters read as centrally about sin, not sickness, so Matthew's use here reflects a selective, healing-focused application rather than a straightforward rendering of the whole verse's intent.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew and the Greek both say the same basic thing here: mercy is preferred over sacrifice. Jesus's wording, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, matches the sense of both the BSB rendering of the Hebrew and the Brenton rendering of the Greek. The only difference between the Hebrew and Greek traditions themselves is a small one (I desire versus I will have, and burnt offerings versus whole-burnt-offerings), and Jesus's short quotation does not land on that difference at all. So there is nothing here that shows Jesus following one text tradition over the other.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the first half of Hosea 6:6. He leaves out the second line, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings, since his point (defending mercy toward sinners) does not need it.

In its own setting

In Hosea 6, God is confronting Israel (Ephraim) and Judah for a loyalty that fades like morning mist or dew. He has sent prophets to warn them and even used harsh judgments to try to turn them back. In verse 6, God explains what he actually wants from his people: not empty ritual sacrifice, but genuine mercy and real knowledge of him. The next verse says that instead they have broken the covenant and been unfaithful, like Adam. So the original point is that God's people were going through religious motions (sacrifices) while their hearts and their treatment of others were far from him.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 9, Jesus has just called Matthew, a tax collector, and is eating with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees object, and Jesus responds by telling them to go and learn what Hosea's words mean. He uses the verse to explain his own behavior: he associates with sinners because his mission is to call sinners, not to reward people who are already comfortably righteous. The quotation backs up his claim that God cares more about mercy shown to people than about ritual correctness. Jesus applies an eighth-century critique of empty sacrifice to a first-century argument about who is fit company for a rabbi.

Which text, and how we can tell

The core wording matches Malachi in both the Hebrew and Greek traditions; MT and LXX agree closely here (send / messenger / prepare or survey the way / before me). But Matthew changes the pronouns from first person (before Me) to second person (ahead of You, before You), which neither the MT nor the LXX of Malachi has. This second-person shift matches the wording pattern of Exodus 23:20 (before you, before thy face) more than it matches either version of Malachi. So the base text is Malachi in either tradition, but the person of the pronouns has been adjusted, likely under the influence of Exodus 23:20.

What changed

• ◆tense or person. Malachi has God speaking about sending a messenger before Me (first person); Matthew's quotation has before You (second person), shifting the referent from the LORD to Jesus.
• ◆conflation. The wording ahead of You echoes the second-person phrasing found in Exodus 23:20 (before you), suggesting the two OT texts have been blended, a pattern also seen in Mark's and Luke's use of the same quotation.
• ◆substitution. Where Malachi (both MT and LXX) reads prepare/survey the way before Me, Matthew's text reads prepare Your way before You, replacing the first-person object with a second-person one throughout.

In its own setting

In Malachi 3:1-4, the LORD answers the people's complaints about injustice by announcing that He will send a messenger to prepare the way before His own coming. That coming is described as sudden and as an appearance in His temple, bringing purifying judgment like fire or launderer's soap, especially on the priesthood (the sons of Levi), so that right worship can be restored. The messenger and the Lord who comes are distinguished from each other in the passage: one prepares, the other arrives to judge and purify. The whole oracle is about the LORD Himself visiting His people, not about a human king or an ordinary prophet.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus quotes this verse to identify John the Baptist as the promised messenger who goes ahead to prepare the way, and He does so right after affirming that John is the greatest of the prophets. By changing the pronouns from before Me to before You, Jesus applies Malachi's oracle (originally about a messenger preparing the way before the LORD) to Himself: He is the one before whom John goes. This is a striking move: it takes an Old Testament text about the LORD's own coming and applies the coming one's role to Jesus. The echo of Exodus 23:20 (an angel to protect Israel and lead them to the promised place) adds a further layer, casting John's ministry as leading God's people toward the one who fulfills the guiding, protecting role once given to that angel.

Where readers differ

• ◆The change to second person is simply Jesus (or Matthew) adapting the quotation to fit the immediate address to the crowd about John, without intending a deep theological claim beyond identifying John as the messenger. (The main point of the passage is to identify John's role using Malachi's messenger figure; the pronoun shift could be read as a natural adjustment for direct speech.)
• ◆The change is a deliberate and significant Christological move: by saying before You rather than before Me, Jesus places Himself in the role Malachi assigned to the LORD who comes to the temple, implying His own divine identity. (The same conflated quotation (Malachi plus Exodus wording) appears at the start of Mark's Gospel introducing Jesus' ministry, and the consistent pattern of applying it to Jesus across multiple Gospels suggests intentional theological use, not incidental phrasing.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Exodus 23:20

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament) and the Greek Septuagint (as reflected in Brenton) say the same thing here: God desires mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Matthew's wording matches both traditions closely enough that no distinct source can be identified from this one line. The only difference between the BSB Old Testament and Brenton is that Brenton renders the first verb as I will have mercy rather than sacrifice instead of I desire, but this is a translation nuance in Brenton's English, not a difference between the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Matthew's wording, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, tracks the sense shared by both.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Matthew quotes only the first half of Hosea 6:6 (I desire mercy, not sacrifice) and leaves out the second half about the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings, since only the mercy-versus-sacrifice contrast is needed for his point.

In its own setting

In Hosea 6:4-7, God laments over Ephraim and Judah, whose loyalty to Him is fleeting, like morning mist or dew that quickly disappears. Despite His warnings through the prophets and His judgments, the people have not remained faithful. God declares that what He truly wants is mercy and the knowledge of Him, not empty ritual sacrifice. The passage contrasts external religious performance with inward faithfulness and relationship, since the people, like Adam, have broken the covenant and been unfaithful.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus quotes this line to the Pharisees after they criticize His disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath. He points out that the Pharisees have condemned people who were not guilty, because they valued rigid rule-keeping over compassion. By citing Hosea 6:6, Jesus argues that God's priority has always been mercy toward people over strict ritual observance. He uses the OT text to correct a misunderstanding of what pleases God, applying an eighth-century BC critique of empty sacrifice to first-century AD legalism about Sabbath rules. The quotation functions as a rebuke: if the Pharisees understood this principle, they would not have judged the disciples so harshly.

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew's wording does not match either the Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament) or the Greek Septuagint (as reflected in Brenton) word for word. It is close in sense to both, but it has its own phrasing throughout, for example quarrel or cry out instead of cry out or raise his voice. Many scholars think Matthew is giving his own translation or paraphrase of the Hebrew text rather than copying the existing Greek translation. Because the match to either textual tradition is loose throughout the quotation, this entry is marked neither rather than MT or LXX.

What changed

• ◆substitution. Where the Old Testament (BSB) has whom I uphold, Matthew has whom I have chosen. The Septuagint (Brenton) has a different structure entirely at this point, naming Jacob and Israel as the servant.
• ◆substitution. Matthew has He will proclaim justice to the nations where the Old Testament (BSB) has He will bring justice to the nations and Brenton has he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
• ◆substitution. Matthew has He will not quarrel or cry out where the Old Testament (BSB) has He will not cry out or raise His voice and Brenton has He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice.
• ◆omission. Matthew's quotation stops after till He leads justice to victory and in His name the nations will put their hope. It leaves out the material in Isaiah 42:5-9 about God as Creator, the covenant for the people, opening blind eyes, and freeing prisoners.
• ◆substitution. Where the Old Testament (BSB) has He will faithfully bring forth justice, and then a separate line He will not grow weak or discouraged before He has established justice on the earth, Matthew compresses this to a single clause: till He leads justice to victory.
• ◆substitution. The Old Testament (BSB) ends with In His law the islands will put their hope. Matthew has In His name the nations will put their hope. Brenton's Greek text already has in his name shall the Gentiles trust, so Matthew's wording here lines up with the Greek tradition rather than the Hebrew one.

In its own setting

In Isaiah, this passage introduces the first of several Servant Songs, poems about a chosen servant of the LORD. In the Hebrew text the servant's identity is not named here, though the wider book connects the servant both to the nation Israel and to an individual figure who will restore Israel. The Greek Septuagint translation, as shown in Brenton, makes this explicit by inserting the names Jacob and Israel. The servant is gentle and unassuming, someone who will not shout in the streets or crush the weak (the bruised reed, the smoldering wick), yet who will faithfully establish justice. The wider context (through verse 9) describes this servant's mission in cosmic terms: called by the Creator of heaven and earth, given as a covenant and a light to the nations, opening blind eyes and freeing prisoners from darkness. The passage closes God's older promises being fulfilled and new things now being announced.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this passage right after describing how Jesus, aware that the Pharisees were plotting against Him, withdrew, healed people quietly, and warned them not to make Him known. Matthew presents this quiet, non-confrontational healing ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah's picture of a gentle servant who will not quarrel or cry out and will not break a bruised reed. By omitting the material about the Creator, the covenant, and freeing prisoners (Isaiah 42:5-9), Matthew narrows the focus specifically to the servant's gentle manner and future role in bringing justice to the nations. The closing line, in His name the nations will put their hope, supports one of Matthew's major themes: that the Gentiles, not only Israel, are included in the hope Jesus brings. This is the longest single Old Testament quotation in Matthew's Gospel, showing how important this image of the humble, healing servant was to his portrait of Jesus.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is making his own fresh translation from the Hebrew text, independent of the existing Greek Septuagint translation. (Matthew's wording often sits closer in sense to the Hebrew-based BSB reading (for example, keeping the servant unnamed, unlike the Septuagint which names Jacob and Israel), yet it also does not copy either text word for word, suggesting an independent rendering.)
• ◆Matthew is loosely paraphrasing the Greek Septuagint tradition, adapting its wording for his own emphasis. (The closing phrase in His name the nations will put their hope matches the Greek Septuagint's in his name shall the Gentiles trust rather than the Hebrew-based in His law the islands will put their hope, which suggests Matthew knew and used the Greek tradition at least in part.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Both the Hebrew-based BSB and the Greek-based Brenton say essentially the same thing here: I will open my mouth in parables. The only difference is that the BSB has things hidden from the beginning while Brenton has dark sayings which have been from the beginning, and Matthew's wording, things hidden since the foundation of the world, is closer in sense to the BSB's from the beginning phrase but uses its own wording for hidden and for the time reference. Since neither tradition disagrees with the other in substance, this is marked agree rather than a preference for one over the other. Matthew is plainly drawing on this psalm verse regardless of which textual tradition supplied his exact wording.

What changed

• ◆substitution. Where the OT (in both the BSB rendering and Brenton) speaks of things hidden or dark sayings from the beginning, Matthew writes things hidden since the foundation of the world. This is a difference in the time phrase used (from the beginning versus since the foundation of the world), though the meaning, going back to the very start, is the same idea.
• ◆other. Attribution: Matthew attributes these words to the prophet, though Psalm 78 is a psalm attributed to Asaph, not one of the books traditionally called prophetic. This reflects a broader New Testament habit of treating psalms and other Old Testament writings as prophetic speech, since the psalmist here speaks God's own message.

In its own setting

Psalm 78 is a long historical psalm attributed to Asaph. It opens with the psalmist calling the people to listen to his teaching, which he says will come in parables and will uncover things hidden from the beginning, namely the story of Israel's past that earlier generations passed down. The psalm then retells Israel's history from the exodus through the wilderness wanderings and into the era of kings, focusing especially on Israel's repeated unfaithfulness despite God's wonders and provision. The opening verses, quoted here by Matthew, function as an introduction promising that the psalmist will teach lessons drawn from Israel's past so that future generations will know God's mighty works. The parables and hidden things in the psalm's own setting are the historical lessons and deeper meaning found in retelling Israel's story, not future mysteries in the way Matthew will use the term.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this verse right after a long section of Jesus teaching in parables to the crowds, explaining to his disciples why he speaks in parables and noting that some truths are being revealed while others remain concealed from those without ears to hear. Matthew presents Jesus' parabolic teaching as the fulfillment of the psalmist's ancient words, treating I will open my mouth in parables as pointing forward to Jesus' teaching method. The things hidden from the foundation of the world, which in the psalm referred to Israel's history and God's past works, are reapplied by Matthew to the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus discloses through parables. This is a somewhat expanded, deeper application of the psalm's language rather than a claim that the psalmist was consciously predicting Jesus. It reflects the common New Testament pattern of finding a pattern or foreshadowing in Israel's scriptures that finds a fuller and greater fulfillment in Christ.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is using typology, seeing Jesus' parabolic teaching as a greater fulfillment of a pattern set by the psalmist's own teaching method, without claiming the psalmist foresaw Jesus specifically. (Psalm 78 in its own context is about Asaph teaching Israel's history through instructive sayings, not about a future messianic figure; Matthew's application requires the psalm to point beyond its original setting.)
• ◆Matthew, by calling the psalm the words of the prophet, treats the entire Old Testament, including psalms, as prophetic in a fuller sense, so the fulfillment language reflects a real, intended prophecy about the Messiah's manner of teaching. (The introductory formula so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet is the same kind of language Matthew uses elsewhere for direct predictive fulfillment, suggesting he read the psalm as genuinely anticipatory of Christ's ministry.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Jesus joins two commands. The first, Honor your father and mother, reads the same in Hebrew and Greek and in Matthew, with the reason clause about long life dropped. The second is Exodus 21:17 (numbered 21:16 in the Greek), and there Matthew's Greek verb is the Septuagint's: the Greek translators rendered the Hebrew curse with a word meaning speak evil of (Brenton: reviles), and Matthew has that same word, where a fresh translation of the Hebrew would more likely have used the ordinary word for curse. The difference is invisible in English, since BSB renders both as curses, but it marks the Greek form. (The readings shown are from Exodus 20:12, the primary text; the mark of the Greek form is in the second command, Exodus 21:17, shown as a secondary source.)

What changed

• ◆conflation. Jesus combines two separate Old Testament commands, Exodus 20:12 (honor your father and mother) and Exodus 21:17 (the penalty for cursing father or mother), into a single quotation introduced by one formula, For God said.
• ◆truncation. The first command drops the reason clause found in both the Hebrew and Greek of Exodus 20:12, so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you (BSB) / that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the good land (Brenton). Only the bare command, Honor your father and mother, is kept.
• ◆substitution. For the second command, must be put to death (Matthew) against must surely be put to death (BSB Exodus 21:17); the Hebrew doubles the verb for emphasis, the Greek (Brenton: shall surely die) keeps it, and Matthew's shorter form drops it without changing the sense. The Greek's speak evil of, where the Hebrew has curse, is carried by Matthew.

In its own setting

Exodus 20:12 is the fifth of the Ten Commandments, given at Mount Sinai as part of the covenant law for Israel. It calls God's people to honor their parents, with a promise attached: long life in the land the LORD is giving them. It sits among commands about worship and the Sabbath just before it, and commands about murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and covetousness just after it. Exodus 21:17 is part of a separate section of case law dealing with serious offenses within the family and community, and it sets the death penalty for the specific act of cursing (that is, cursing with intent to harm or dishonor) one's father or mother. Together the two texts show that honoring parents was not just a domestic nicety in Israel's law but a matter treated with the utmost seriousness, backed by both blessing and severe penalty.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 15, Jesus is confronting the Pharisees and scribes over a practice where a person could dedicate money or property to God (calling it a gift devoted to God) and then use that vow as an excuse not to support their aging parents. Jesus quotes the two commands together to show that God's own law placed the highest value on caring for one's father and mother, treating neglect or disrespect of them as a grave matter. He then contrasts this divine command with the man-made tradition that let people sidestep it, arguing that their tradition nullifies the word of God. The combination of the two texts sharpens the point: not only is honoring parents commanded, but failing them (to the point of cursing them) carries the weight of a capital offense in the Law. Jesus is not changing the meaning of either text; he is stacking them to expose a contradiction between the Pharisees' rule and the law they claimed to uphold.

Where readers differ

• ◆The conflation is a standard and recognized technique, not a distortion. (Combining two texts on a related theme (parents) under a single introduction was a normal way of citing Scripture in Jewish teaching of the period, and both source texts are quoted accurately in their essential content.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Exodus 21:17

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Old Testament translation) simply says their worship is made up of man-made rules, without using the word vain or in vain. The Greek Septuagint adds the phrase in vain and frames it as people teaching the commandments and doctrines of men, which is much closer to Matthew's wording. Since Matthew includes the words in vain and keeps the teaching as doctrine the precepts of men structure, he is clearly following the Greek Septuagint tradition here rather than a direct Hebrew rendering. This is a well-recognized case among scholars: Matthew's quotation matches the Greek Old Testament, not the Hebrew, at this specific point.

What changed

• ◆substitution. The opening line of the Isaiah quotation (These people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips) is dropped by Matthew, who begins instead with the honoring-with-lips line, folding the first two Isaiah clauses into one shorter opening sentence.
• ◆omission. Matthew omits the clause These people draw near to Me with their mouths, moving directly to honor Me with their lips.

In its own setting

In Isaiah 29, God confronts the people of Judah (and Jerusalem, called Ariel earlier in the chapter) for a worship that is only outward performance. Their mouths and lips honor God, but their hearts are distant from him, and their reverence amounts to nothing more than rules handed down by human tradition rather than genuine devotion to God. Because of this hollow worship, God announces that he will act in surprising, confounding ways, humbling the wisdom of the wise. The passage continues into a rebuke of those who scheme in secret, thinking God cannot see them, and closes with the image of the potter and the clay: it is absurd for what is made to say its maker does not understand it. The whole unit is about the folly of surface religion combined with human self-sufficiency before the God who truly sees and truly forms.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 15, Jesus is responding to the Pharisees and scribes, who had criticized his disciples for not observing the tradition of washing their hands before eating. Jesus counters that they themselves break God's commandment for the sake of their tradition, and he then quotes Isaiah 29:13 to describe them directly: their lip-service to God does not match the true state of their hearts, and their worship is empty because it is built on merely human teaching. He applies Isaiah's ancient rebuke of Judah's hollow religion to his contemporary religious leaders, framing it as prophecy fulfilled in their behavior (the passage begins, You hypocrites, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you). The point is that this is not a new problem, but the same old failure Isaiah already identified: rules of men substituted for real devotion to God.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is quoting the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 29:13, not a direct Hebrew rendering. (The word in vain and the phrase teaching the commandments and doctrines of men (matched in Matthew by teach as doctrine the precepts of men) appear in the Greek Septuagint (per Brenton) but are not present in the same form in the Hebrew-based BSB Old Testament text, which lacks in vain and phrases the last line differently as rules taught by men.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew and the Greek both say that God made mankind male and female, and Jesus' quotation matches both. There is no meaningful wording difference between the two traditions here for this phrase. Because they agree, there is nothing to trace to one tradition over the other.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the closing clause, made them male and female, and leaves out the earlier statements in Genesis 1:27 about man being made in God's image.
• ◆other. Jesus adds the phrase from the beginning and identifies God as the Creator, framing the quotation as part of his own argument rather than simply repeating the verse.

In its own setting

Genesis 1:26-28 describes the sixth day of creation, when God makes mankind in His own image to rule over the earth and its creatures. The text states that God created man in His own image, and that He created them male and female. This is followed by God's blessing on them and His command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. In its original setting the verse is about the creation of humanity as a whole, both sexes together bearing God's image, and about their calling to govern and fill the earth.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 19, Jesus is being tested by the Pharisees about whether divorce is lawful. He answers by pointing back to creation itself, quoting the line that God made them male and female to establish that the two-sex design of humanity is God's original intention. He immediately follows this (in the next verse) with a quotation from Genesis 2:24 about a man being joined to his wife, combining the two texts to argue that marriage is a permanent union established by God from the beginning. The quotation is used to ground his teaching on marriage and divorce in the created order rather than in later Mosaic allowances.

Which text, and how we can tell

Hebrew and Greek say the same thing, with one visible difference: the Hebrew says they will become one flesh, the Greek adds two (they two), and Jesus' quotation has the two. That is the Septuagint's reading, and it is the reading Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31 carry as well. Everything else in the verse agrees across all three.

What changed

• ◆substitution. The Genesis text in the BSB reads they will become one flesh, while Matthew's quotation reads the two will become one flesh. Brenton's Septuagint already has they two shall be one flesh, so the word two is the Greek tradition's, not Matthew's invention.

In its own setting

This verse comes right after the account of God forming the woman from the man's rib in the Garden of Eden. The man responds with joy, recognizing the woman as bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. The narrator then draws a lesson from this first marriage: because of this original union, a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh. It functions as a foundational statement about the nature and purpose of marriage, spoken in the voice of the narrator (traditionally understood as Moses) rather than as dialogue from Adam or God. The passage closes by noting that the man and his wife were naked and unashamed, underscoring the innocence and completeness of the union before sin entered the world.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew 19, Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees about divorce. He responds by pointing back to God's original design for marriage in creation, first citing that God made them male and female, and then quoting this verse from Genesis 2:24 to establish that marriage was intended by God to be a permanent, one-flesh union. Jesus uses the quotation to argue that what God has joined together, man should not separate, directly countering any casual view of divorce. He treats the Genesis text as carrying full divine authority, applying it to a legal and ethical dispute in his own day. The quotation is central to his argument rather than incidental; it is the scriptural foundation on which his entire teaching on marriage and divorce rests.

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew (as reflected in the BSB Exodus text) orders the commands murder, adultery, theft, false witness, honor parents. The Greek Brenton text orders them adultery, theft, murder, false witness, honor parents. Jesus' listing in Matthew follows the Hebrew order (murder, adultery, theft) rather than the Greek order, then adds honor of parents and the love command from Leviticus. Because the actual wording of each command is short and nearly identical in both traditions, the clearest signal here is word order, and on that point Matthew lines up with the Hebrew tradition. This is a case where the content is agreed but the sequence points one direction.

What changed

• ◆reordering. Matthew places do not murder before do not commit adultery and do not steal, matching the Hebrew (MT-reflected) order rather than the Greek (LXX) order, which lists adultery and theft before murder.
• ◆omission. Matthew's list omits the covetousness commands (house, wife, servants, animals) found in the wider Exodus 20 passage, since the man asked which commandments and Jesus gave a selective list.
• ◆conflation. Jesus adds love your neighbor as yourself from Leviticus 19:18 onto the end of the Exodus commandments, combining material from two different books into a single spoken list.
• ◆omission. The words I am the LORD, which close the Leviticus 19:18 verse, are not included when Jesus quotes the love command.

In its own setting

Exodus 20:12-16 is part of the Ten Commandments given to Israel at Mount Sinai, covering duties toward parents and prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony. These are foundational, non-negotiable laws for the covenant community, addressed to every Israelite personally. Leviticus 19:18 comes from a separate section of holiness instructions, where Israel is told not to take revenge or hold grudges but instead to love one's neighbor as oneself, grounded in the statement that the LORD is speaking. In its own setting Leviticus 19:18 is about relations within the Israelite community specifically, restraining vengeance and cultivating goodwill toward fellow Israelites.

What the New Testament does with it

A man has just asked Jesus what good thing he must do to have eternal life, and after Jesus mentions keeping the commandments, the man asks which ones. Jesus responds by reciting several of the Ten Commandments dealing with human relationships (murder, adultery, theft, false witness, honoring parents) and then adds the command to love one's neighbor as oneself from Leviticus. By combining these, Jesus summarizes the horizontal, neighbor-facing commandments under the single heading of neighbor-love, presenting them as a coherent whole rather than an arbitrary checklist. This sets up the rest of the exchange, where Jesus will press the man further on what he still lacks.

Also drawn on

• ◆Leviticus 19:18

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew does not reproduce either the Hebrew or the Greek wording of Zechariah 9:9 in full. He drops righteous and victorious (or in the Greek, just, and a Saviour) entirely, keeping only the word for gentle or meek. The opening words, Say to the Daughter of Zion, are closer to Isaiah 62:11 (Brenton: say ye to the daughter of Sion) than to Zechariah's own opening (Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion). So this is best described as Matthew's own shortened and combined wording, not a straight following of either textual tradition.

What changed

• ◆conflation. The opening line, Say to the Daughter of Zion, matches the wording pattern of Isaiah 62:11 (say ye to the daughter of Sion in Brenton) rather than Zechariah's own opening line, Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion. Matthew appears to blend the two prophecies at this point.
• ◆omission. Matthew leaves out righteous and victorious (Hebrew) or just, and a Saviour (Greek). Only the idea of gentleness or humility (gentle in Matthew, humble in the BSB Hebrew rendering, meek in Brenton) is kept.
• ◆truncation. Matthew quotes only part of Zechariah 9:9 and none of verse 10, which goes on to describe the king cutting off weapons of war and bringing peace to the nations.

In its own setting

Zechariah 9:9-10 pictures a future king coming to Jerusalem, but coming in a surprising way, not on a war horse but on a donkey, a young colt. The passage calls Zion and Jerusalem to rejoice because this king is righteous and victorious yet humble. The verses that follow describe this king abolishing the instruments of war, chariot, horse, and bow, and proclaiming peace to the nations, with a dominion reaching from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth. It is a picture of a peaceful, universal kingdom brought by a humble king, in contrast to conquering kings who ride horses and chariots.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this line as Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey, presenting it as a direct fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy about the coming king. By shortening the quotation to focus on the king's humility and the donkey, and by opening with wording that echoes Isaiah's announcement of the coming Savior, Matthew ties Jesus to both prophetic pictures at once. He leaves out the note about the king being victorious and about the abolishing of weapons of war, since that part of the fulfillment (universal peace, an end to war) had not yet visibly happened at this point in the story. The reader is meant to see Jesus as the humble king Zechariah foresaw, entering the city not as a conqueror but in gentleness.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew intentionally blended the opening of Isaiah 62:11 with Zechariah 9:9 to link two related prophecies about salvation coming to Zion. (The phrase Say to the Daughter of Zion matches the pattern of Isaiah 62:11 (say ye to the daughter of Sion in Brenton) more closely than Zechariah's own wording, Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion, suggesting a deliberate combination.)
• ◆Matthew is simply summarizing Zechariah 9:9 loosely for his own narrative purposes, without consciously drawing on Isaiah 62:11 as a second source. (The wording overlap with Isaiah is brief (a few words) and could be coincidental phrasing rather than an intentional conflation, since summarizing and adapting quotations was common practice.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Isaiah 62:11

Which text, and how we can tell

For the Isaiah half of the quotation, the Hebrew and the Greek say the same thing, and Jesus' words match both: My house will be called a house of prayer. The second half, a den of robbers, comes from Jeremiah 7:11, where again the Hebrew and Greek agree with each other and with what Jesus says. So there is no Hebrew versus Greek difference to track here; the notable feature of this quotation is that two verses have been joined together, not that one tradition was chosen over another.

What changed

• ◆conflation. Jesus joins two separate Old Testament verses into a single statement: My house will be called a house of prayer from Isaiah 56:7, and a den of robbers from Jeremiah 7:11. In their original settings these are two distinct sentences from two different prophets, spoken centuries apart.
• ◆omission. The closing phrase of Isaiah 56:7, for all the nations, is dropped; Mark 11:17 keeps it.
• ◆truncation. From Jeremiah 7:11, only the phrase den of robbers is carried over; the rest of Jeremiah's sentence (the question about the house bearing God's name, and the LORD's declaration that He himself has seen it) is left out.

In its own setting

Isaiah 56 looks ahead to a time when foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, keep the Sabbath, and hold fast to His covenant will be welcomed to worship at God's holy mountain, not turned away. God promises that their offerings will be accepted and that His house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations, meaning the temple was meant to be a place where even non-Israelites could come and pray to the true God. Jeremiah 7:11 comes from a very different moment: God, through Jeremiah, confronts the people of Judah for treating the temple as a safe hideout while they steal, murder, and worship idols elsewhere. The den of robbers image is not primarily about commerce in the temple courts; it pictures a hideout where criminals feel safe after committing their crimes. Jeremiah warns that God sees this hypocrisy and will not let the temple's presence protect a sinful nation.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus has just driven out the money changers and those selling animals in the temple courts. He explains His action by combining Isaiah's vision of the temple as a house of prayer for all nations with Jeremiah's accusation that the temple has become a den of robbers. By joining the two, He charges that the temple's true purpose (welcoming all peoples to pray) is being blocked or corrupted by those running it, much as Jeremiah's generation had turned the temple into a hideout for wrongdoing. The point is less about commercial dishonesty in pricing and more about the temple failing its calling as a place of access to God, especially since the outer court where the selling happened was the one place Gentiles could worship. Jesus is not citing either prophet for a technical argument; He is applying two well-known prophetic warnings to indict the present temple leadership.

Where readers differ

• ◆The wording itself (Hebrew vs Greek) is not disputed; both traditions say the same thing at every point Jesus quotes. (Direct comparison of the BSB (representing the Hebrew) and Brenton's translation of the Greek for both Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 shows identical sense and near-identical wording.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Jeremiah 7:11

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew's Greek wording is close to neither the Hebrew-based BSB order nor Brenton's Septuagint wording exactly, but shares vocabulary with both. The BSB (from the Hebrew) has mourning and great weeping, in that order, while Matthew has weeping and great mourning, reversing which word gets the word great. Brenton's Septuagint has three nouns (lamentation, weeping, wailing) rather than two, so Matthew is not simply copying either textual tradition word for word. The core content, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted because they are no more, matches both the Hebrew-based BSB and Matthew closely; Brenton's Septuagint instead says Rachel would not cease weeping, which is a different image (unceasing weeping rather than refusing comfort).

What changed

• ◆reordering. Matthew places weeping first and mourning second (with great modifying mourning), while the BSB rendering of the Hebrew places mourning first and weeping second (with great modifying weeping).
• ◆other. The Greek behind Matthew and the Hebrew-based BSB both preserve the phrase refusing to be comforted, but Brenton's Septuagint instead reads Rachel would not cease weeping, a noticeably different picture of her grief.

In its own setting

Jeremiah 31 is a message of hope set against the backdrop of Israel's exile. The voice heard in Ramah pictures Rachel, ancestral mother of Israel, weeping for her descendants, the northern tribes, who have been carried off or killed. Ramah was a town associated with mourning and with the road into exile. But the passage does not end in despair: immediately after the weeping, the LORD tells Rachel to stop weeping, because the exiled children will return from the land of the enemy, and there is hope for the future. The verse Matthew quotes is only the dark half of a promise whose second half is restoration.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew applies Jeremiah's image of Rachel's grief to Herod's slaughter of the infant boys in and around Bethlehem after the visit of the magi. He treats the earlier bereavement in Israel's history as a pattern that finds a fresh, sorrowful echo in this new massacre near the same region. Matthew introduces the quotation with a fulfillment formula, the same kind of language he uses elsewhere to link Jesus' life to Scripture, but here the fulfillment is one of tragic pattern and echo rather than of a specific predicted event. He quotes only the weeping half of Jeremiah's oracle; he does not go on to quote the following verses about hope and the children's return, though many readers over the centuries have noted that the wider context of Jeremiah 31 supplies exactly that hope for Matthew's grieving audience, even though Matthew does not spell it out.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is quoting loosely from memory or making his own Greek rendering, not copying a fixed Greek Old Testament text word for word. (His wording overlaps with, but does not exactly match, either the Hebrew-based BSB order or Brenton's Septuagint wording, and the differences look like the kind of small rewording common in ancient quotation practice rather than a deliberate theological change.)
• ◆Matthew is drawing on a Greek textual tradition of Jeremiah slightly different from the one Brenton translates, since ancient copies of the Septuagint varied among themselves. (Multiple Greek manuscript families of Jeremiah existed in antiquity, and Brenton represents only one line of that tradition, so a perfect match is not expected even if Matthew was using a Greek text.)
• ◆The larger interpretive question, whether Matthew intends readers to hear the hope of Jeremiah 31:16 to 17 behind his quotation of only verse 15, is genuinely disputed among commentators. (Some argue Matthew's readers, familiar with the passage, would supply the hopeful continuation; others argue Matthew quotes only what fits his immediate scene of grief and does not intend the reader to import the rest.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Both the Hebrew (as rendered in the BSB) and the Greek Septuagint (in Brenton) give the same command, though Brenton's English wording differs slightly: You shall not murder versus Thou shalt not kill. This is a translation difference in how Brenton renders the Greek into English, not a difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves; the underlying command is the same prohibition in both traditions. Jesus's quotation matches the substance of both, so there is no textual divide to track here.

What changed

• ◆addition. Jesus adds a second clause, Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment, which is not part of the Exodus 20:13 text itself but reflects the broader legal tradition surrounding the command.
• ◆other. Jesus frames the quotation as something the ancients heard, setting up a contrast with his own teaching that follows (which intensifies the command to include anger and insult).

In its own setting

Exodus 20:13 is one of the Ten Commandments given by God to Israel at Mount Sinai. It sits among a short list of commands governing relationships within the community: honoring parents, not murdering, not committing adultery, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. In its setting, the command is a bare, absolute prohibition with no stated penalty attached in that verse; it establishes the basic principle that human life is protected under God's law. Later parts of the Law (elsewhere in the Pentateuch) spell out penalties and legal procedures for violation, but Exodus 20:13 itself is simply the foundational rule.

What the New Testament does with it

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes this command as something his listeners have heard taught, then pairs it with a summary of the legal consequence (subject to judgment) that later tradition and law attached to it. He then intensifies the command's scope, teaching that anger and contemptuous words toward a brother fall under the same moral concern as murder itself. Jesus is not overturning the command but deepening it, tracing the root of murder back to the heart's anger and contempt. This is the first of several such heard/but I say to you contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus consistently reveals the fuller intent behind the Law's commands.

Where readers differ

• ◆The Hebrew and Greek texts of Exodus 20:13 say the same thing, and Jesus's quotation reflects that shared substance. (Both the BSB (translating the Hebrew) and Brenton (translating the Greek) render a short, simple prohibition against taking human life; the difference in English wording (murder versus kill) is a matter of translation choice, not a divide between manuscript traditions.)

Which text, and how we can tell

The Hebrew and Greek both give a short, plain command against adultery, and the New Testament wording matches both. There is no meaningful difference in wording or word order between the traditions here. This is one of the simplest cases anywhere in the New Testament: a two-word command quoted exactly as it stood in both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Old Testament.

In its own setting

This command comes from the Ten Commandments given at Mount Sinai, as part of the covenant law God gave Israel through Moses. It sits among other commands protecting the family and household: honoring parents, not murdering, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. The prohibition against adultery protected marriage and family lines within the covenant community. In its setting it is a direct divine command, addressed to the whole nation, not a suggestion or piece of wisdom advice.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus quotes this command as something his listeners have heard taught, using it as the starting point for one of his series of contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount. He is not disputing or correcting the command itself, but is about to intensify it, showing that God's standard concerns the heart, not only the outward act. The formula you have heard that it was said reflects how this commandment was taught and repeated in the synagogues of Jesus' day. Jesus treats the command as settled and authoritative, then presses it further to include lustful intent, not just the physical act of adultery.

Which text, and how we can tell

In the Hebrew (as the BSB renders it), God commands Isaiah to go make the people's hearts calloused and their ears deaf, an act God tells the prophet to perform on the people. In the Greek, the verbs describing the people's hearing, seeing, and dullness of heart are stated simply as facts about the people's own condition (their heart has become gross, their ears are dull), not as a command to the prophet to cause it. Matthew's Greek wording follows this descriptive, third-person form of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew's command form. The match is close enough in phrasing and grammatical shape that this is a clear case of Matthew quoting the Greek Old Testament rather than translating the Hebrew independently.

What changed

• ◆tense or person. The Hebrew has God commanding the prophet to act on the people (make their hearts calloused, deafen their ears); the Greek (and Matthew) instead describes the people's condition as already so (their heart has grown callous, they hardly hear), removing the sense of a command given to the prophet.
• ◆substitution. Where Isaiah (in the BSB translation of the Hebrew) has God say Go and tell this people, Matthew's wording moves directly into the description without that imperative framing, following the Greek's structure.
• ◆other. Matthew shifts the introductory frame from God speaking directly to Isaiah (in the original setting) to a statement about the prophecy being fulfilled in the crowds hearing Jesus' parables, applying the ancient words to a new audience.

In its own setting

This passage records Isaiah's commissioning as a prophet. After Isaiah volunteers to be sent (Here am I, send me), God gives him a hard assignment: his preaching will not soften the people's hearts but confirm them in their unresponsiveness. The people's persistent refusal to listen means that continued preaching will effectively callous them further rather than turn them back, so that they hear and see without understanding, seeing, or turning to be healed. Isaiah then asks how long this hardened state will last, and God answers that it will continue until the land is devastated and the population exiled, though a remnant (the holy seed, the stump) will remain. It is a passage about judgment on persistent unbelief, delivered at the start of Isaiah's ministry to prepare him for widespread rejection of his message.

What the New Testament does with it

Jesus quotes this passage to explain why He teaches the crowds in parables: the parables reveal truth to those with open hearts but conceal it from those who are unwilling to see or hear. Just as in Isaiah's day the people's own hardness of heart, not a lack of clear speech, prevented them from understanding, so in Jesus' day the crowds' persistent unresponsiveness is why the deeper meaning of the parables does not reach them. Matthew applies Isaiah's description of a hardened, spiritually dull nation to the people surrounding Jesus who see His works and hear His words but do not perceive their significance. The point is continuity: the pattern of God's people failing to respond to God's messengers, seen in Isaiah's time, is repeating itself in the ministry of Jesus.

Where readers differ

• ◆The difference between the Hebrew's command form (God telling Isaiah to harden the people) and the Greek's descriptive form (the people are already dull) reflects a genuine theological difference worth noting: one emphasizes God's active judicial hardening, the other the people's own responsibility. (Comparison of the BSB's translation of the Hebrew (make the hearts of this people calloused, an imperative addressed to Isaiah) against Brenton's translation of the Greek (the heart of this people has become gross, a statement of fact, not a command).)
• ◆The difference is stylistic rather than theologically significant, since both traditions arrive at the same outcome, that the people cannot see, hear, or understand, and Isaiah 6:8-13 as a whole makes clear God's judgment is behind the hardening either way. (The wider context (Isaiah 6:8-13) shows God explaining the duration and severity of judgment regardless of the precise grammatical form of the initial description, so the overall message of judgment for persistent unbelief stands unchanged.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Jesus' quotation as given in the BSB matches the Greek Old Testament's wording of praise. The Hebrew text behind Psalm 8:2 is widely understood by scholars to use a word usually meaning strength or a stronghold, not praise, though the BSB (translating the Hebrew) renders it as praise here, which makes the Hebrew and Greek look identical in English when they may not be in the original languages. Because the BSB already smooths over this difference, a reader comparing only the English texts printed here will see agreement, but the underlying textual picture is not settled agreement between Hebrew and Greek. On the wording actually available for comparison, the phrase matches the Greek exactly (mouths of babes and children/infants, praise) and this is the reading Matthew's Greek text reproduces.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Jesus quotes only the opening line of Psalm 8:2 (From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise) and stops there, leaving off the rest of the verse (on account of Your adversaries, to silence the enemy and avenger).

In its own setting

Psalm 8 is a hymn of praise to the LORD for his majesty displayed throughout creation. The psalmist marvels that God has established praise even from the mouths of children and infants, and that this childlike praise is enough to silence God's enemies and avengers. The psalm then moves into wonder that God, whose glory fills the heavens, would also care for human beings, small as they are by comparison. The verse quoted is not originally about the Messiah or about a specific historical event; it is a general statement about how God uses the weak and lowly to accomplish his purposes and confound his adversaries.

What the New Testament does with it

In Matthew's account, children are crying out praise to Jesus in the temple after his triumphal entry, calling him the Son of David. The chief priests and scribes are indignant and challenge Jesus about it. Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 8:2, applying to himself and his situation the psalm's description of God ordaining praise from the mouths of children. By doing so, Jesus implicitly identifies himself as the one to whom praise is rightly directed, and treats the children's praise as the fulfillment of Scripture rather than something to be silenced. He stops short of quoting the psalm's reference to silencing enemies, though the parallel to his critics standing nearby as opponents may be part of the point.

Where readers differ

• ◆The Hebrew word in Psalm 8:2 means strength or a stronghold, and the Greek translators (followed by the BSB and Matthew's source) rendered it more loosely as praise, perhaps because strength was set in parallel with silencing enemies and praise fit the sense of childlike testimony. (This is the majority view among Hebrew lexicographers and is why many English translations elsewhere render the underlying Hebrew word as strength or might rather than praise; the BSB is unusual in following the Greek sense here.)
• ◆The Hebrew word can carry a broader semantic range that includes something like praise or a strong testimony, so the Greek and the BSB are not necessarily mistranslating but rendering a legitimate nuance of the Hebrew term. (Some scholars argue that Hebrew words for strength can extend to praise or bold speech, making the Greek rendering a defensible interpretation rather than a departure from the Hebrew.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Matthew's wording of the core line, the people living in darkness have seen a great light, on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned, is close to both the Hebrew (as rendered in the BSB) and the Greek, so for that clause the two traditions do not disagree in any way visible in English. The clearer difference is in the geographic description before it: the BSB's Hebrew-based text has the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations following directly after the two tribal names, while Brenton's Greek inserts and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast before the land beyond Jordan. Matthew's Greek text drops that extra phrase and reads land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, matching the Hebrew's shorter list rather than the Greek's expanded one. So on this point Matthew is closer to the Hebrew tradition, even though he is plainly using a Greek Old Testament for the sense of the passage as a whole.

What changed

• ◆omission. Matthew's list of place names omits the phrase found in the Greek (Brenton), and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast, matching the shorter Hebrew-based list instead.
• ◆substitution. Where the source text (both Hebrew-based BSB and Greek Brenton) speaks of the people walking in darkness, Matthew has the people living in darkness; a minor wording shift with no change in meaning.
• ◆tense or person. Matthew presents the whole oracle as narration describing a fulfillment (the people living in darkness have seen a great light) rather than as direct address to the land, matching the descriptive form already present in the BSB's rendering of the Hebrew and in Brenton's Greek.

In its own setting

Isaiah spoke this oracle to a nation under threat, most immediately the northern regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, which had suffered under foreign domination and would later be among the first territories overrun by Assyria. Isaiah 9:1 (in the BSB's Hebrew-based numbering) contrasts a past humbling of that land with a future in which God will honor it, reversing gloom into glory. The people who once walked in darkness are promised a great light, language that in context points to relief from oppression and the dawning of hope. The chapter immediately continues with the promise of a child to be born, a son given, who will bear titles like Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God and reign forever on David's throne. So the light dawning on this despised, war-battered region is tied directly to the coming of a Davidic king who will bring lasting peace and justice.

What the New Testament does with it

Matthew quotes this passage to explain why Jesus, after John's arrest, left Nazareth and settled in Capernaum, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, by the Sea of Galilee. He treats Isaiah's promise of light dawning on this region, once looked down on as Galilee of the Gentiles, as finding its fulfillment in the geographic location where Jesus begins His public ministry. The despised, darkened region of Isaiah's day becomes, for Matthew, the very place where the light of Christ first shines in ministry and preaching. This fits Matthew's broader interest in showing that Jesus is the promised Davidic king from Isaiah 9, bringing the very government, peace, and hope that the wider passage describes, even though Matthew quotes only the darkness-and-light lines and not the child-is-born verses that follow them in Isaiah.

Where readers differ

• ◆Matthew is quoting a Greek text of Isaiah but independently trimming or already using a Greek manuscript that lacked the extra phrase about the sea-coast dwellers, thereby landing closer to the Hebrew wording at that point. (The core light-and-darkness lines match Greek and Hebrew alike, and only the place-name list shows Matthew's shorter form; ancient Greek Isaiah manuscripts are known to vary in exactly this kind of list, so this could reflect textual variation rather than Matthew's own editing.)
• ◆Matthew is translating or adapting the Hebrew text directly at this point, producing his own rendering rather than copying an existing Greek translation. (The shorter list matches the Hebrew-based BSB wording exactly, which is the simplest explanation if Matthew (or his source) knew the Hebrew reading and chose to follow it here.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Mark 1:3 is the Greek Isaiah: 'in the wilderness' is attached to the voice (as in the Greek) rather than to the preparing (as in the Hebrew, where 'in the wilderness' and 'in the desert' are parallel), and 'paths' is the Greek word for the Hebrew 'highway'. Mark 1:2 blends Malachi 3:1 with Exodus 23:20 in a form closer to the Hebrew Malachi ('prepare the way') than to Brenton's 'survey the way', with the Exodus pronoun 'before you'. Neither verse in Mark 1:2 is from Isaiah.

What changed

• ◆conflation. Malachi 3:1 ('I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me') is fused with Exodus 23:20 ('I am sending an angel before you ... along the way') and prefixed to Isaiah 40:3, all introduced as 'written in Isaiah'.
• ◆substitution. Malachi's 'before Me' / 'the way before Me' becomes 'ahead of You' / 'Your way', so the messenger now goes before a second person (Jesus) rather than before God speaking.
• ◆substitution. 'make a straight highway for our God' (Hebrew) / 'make straight the paths of our God' (Greek) becomes 'make straight paths for Him', so 'the Lord' whose way is prepared can be read as Jesus.
• ◆reordering. 'in the wilderness' moves from the command ('Prepare the way ... in the wilderness') to the voice ('one calling in the wilderness'), following the Greek and fitting John's location.

In its own setting

Isaiah 40 opens the comfort of Jerusalem after exile: a herald commands that a highway be built through the desert for the LORD's return to his people, and all flesh will see his glory. Malachi 3:1 is a warning: God will send a messenger ahead of his own sudden coming to the temple in judgment. Exodus 23:20 is God's promise to send an angel ahead of Israel on the road to the land. Each is about God's own arrival or God's own escort, not a human forerunner of a second figure.

What the New Testament does with it

Mark stitches the three into one 'Isaiah' text as the heading of his gospel, so that John the Baptist is the messenger and the wilderness voice, and Jesus is the 'Lord' whose way is prepared. The changed pronouns do the work: the messenger goes before 'You', and the paths are 'for Him'. Isaiah's new exodus becomes the frame for the whole book.

Where readers differ

• ◆'In Isaiah the prophet' is the original reading; Mark names the dominant, best-known source of a composite, as ancient writers commonly did. (The earliest and best manuscripts read 'Isaiah'; the later reading 'in the prophets' looks like a scribal correction of the difficulty.)
• ◆The wording 'in the prophets' (found in many later manuscripts) is original and Mark never misattributed anything. (Defended by those who weight the Byzantine text; explains the plural sources but not why scribes would introduce a harder reading.)
• ◆Mark's Malachi/Exodus blend was already a combined text in Jewish use before Mark, so he inherited the composite rather than making it. (The same Malachi/Exodus fusion appears in Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27, in Jesus' words about John, suggesting a shared earlier form.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Malachi 3:1: Source of 'Behold, I will send My messenger ... who will prepare the way' in Mark 1:2. Brenton's Greek reads: Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come into his temple, even the angel of the covenant, whom ye take pleasure in: behold, he is coming, saith the Lord Almighty.
• ◆Exodus 23:20: Source of the 'ahead of You' ('before you') wording in Mark 1:2, which is Exodus' phrasing rather than Malachi's 'before Me'. Brenton's Greek reads: And, behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee.

Which text, and how we can tell

Luke's 'recovery of sight to the blind' is the Septuagint's rendering of a Hebrew phrase that BSB gives as 'freedom to the prisoners' (literally an 'opening', which the Greek translator took as the opening of eyes). Luke also matches the Greek in 'the year of the Lord's favor' and in the Isaiah 58 clause, so the whole reading is in the Greek form.

What changed

• ◆truncation. The reading stops after 'the year of the Lord's favor', before 'and the day of our God's vengeance, to comfort all who mourn' (Isaiah 61:2), leaving the sentence unfinished.
• ◆omission. 'to bind up the brokenhearted' (present in both Hebrew and Greek Isaiah 61:1) is absent from the earliest text of Luke.
• ◆conflation. 'to release the oppressed' is imported from Isaiah 58:6 (Greek form) and placed between the Isaiah 61:1 and 61:2 material.
• ◆substitution. 'freedom to the prisoners' (Hebrew) appears as 'recovery of sight to the blind' (Greek).
• ◆omission. 'the Lord GOD' and 'the LORD has anointed' are simplified to 'the Lord' and 'He has anointed'.

In its own setting

Isaiah 61 is the voice of an anointed herald announcing Zion's restoration after exile: good news to the poor, healing, liberty, a year of favor. In the same breath (61:2) he announces 'the day of our God's vengeance', and 61:3 goes on to comfort the mourners of Zion. Favor for the oppressed and vengeance on their oppressors are two sides of one announcement.

What the New Testament does with it

Luke presents Jesus reading this passage in his home synagogue and then declaring, 'Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.' The reading defines his ministry in terms of release, sight, and favor, and the abrupt stop before 'vengeance' shapes what 'today' includes. The added Isaiah 58 line brings a concrete act of liberation into the programme.

Where readers differ

• ◆The stop before 'vengeance' is deliberate: Jesus announces the era of grace and withholds the day of judgment, which is why Nazareth's mood turns when he then speaks of Gentiles (4:25-27). (The sentence is cut mid-clause; Luke elsewhere separates the present offer of salvation from future judgment.)
• ◆Luke has composed the reading (splicing in Isaiah 58:6, dropping 'brokenhearted') to state his own programme for Jesus' ministry; it is not a transcript of what was read. (A synagogue reading would not jump between chapters; the wording is the Greek Bible, which a Galilean synagogue would not have used.)
• ◆The omission of 'vengeance' is not a theological signal; Isaiah's 'vengeance' is itself good news for the oppressed, and Luke simply ends where the summary is complete. (In Isaiah 61 the two clauses are parallel, both announcing Zion's deliverance.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Isaiah 58:6: Luke's clause 'to release the oppressed' does not come from Isaiah 61; it is the Greek of this verse ('set the bruised free' in Brenton, ), spliced into the reading.

Which text, and how we can tell

Acts has 'the remnant of men may seek', which is the Septuagint's sentence, not the Hebrew's 'they may possess the remnant of Edom'. The two Hebrew words at issue (Edom/mankind, possess/seek) differ from each other by one letter each in the unpointed text, so the Greek translator was reading almost the same consonants and construing them differently.

What changed

• ◆addition. 'After this I will return' is prefixed; Amos 9:11 begins 'In that day I will restore'.
• ◆substitution. 'possess the remnant of Edom' becomes 'the remnant of men may seek the Lord', following the Greek; Israel possessing a neighbour becomes the nations seeking God.
• ◆substitution. 'all the nations that bear My name' is rendered 'all the Gentiles who are called by My name', the Greek form.
• ◆omission. 'I will repair its gaps' and 'as in the days of old' are compressed into 'Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it'.
• ◆addition. 'who will do this' is extended to 'who does these things that have been known for ages', echoing Isaiah 45:21.
• ◆conflation. Amos 9:11-12 is framed with phrases resembling Jeremiah 12:15 at the start and Isaiah 45:21 at the end, all under 'the words of the prophets'.

In its own setting

After eight chapters of judgment, Amos ends with restoration: the collapsed 'tent of David' (the Davidic kingdom) will be rebuilt, and restored Israel will again hold sway over Edom and the other nations that once belonged to David's realm ('that bear My name' is the language of ownership). The following verses picture agricultural abundance and a return from exile. In the Hebrew, the nations are the object of Israel's possession, not subjects seeking God.

What the New Testament does with it

James cites the passage to show that Scripture foresaw Gentiles being taken as a people for God's name without first becoming Jews (Acts 15:14). The Greek form gives him exactly that: the rebuilding of David's tent leads to 'the remnant of men' seeking the Lord and to Gentiles 'called by My name'. On that basis he rules that Gentile converts should not be burdened with the law (15:19-20).

Where readers differ

• ◆The Septuagint reflects a variant Hebrew text (mankind for Edom, seek for possess), so James is quoting a genuine ancient reading, not a mistranslation. (The two Hebrew readings differ by a single letter each; a fragment from Qumran (4QFlor) also connects Amos 9:11 with Davidic restoration, showing the passage was read messianically before Acts.)
• ◆The Greek translator interpreted or misread the Hebrew, producing a universalist sense the prophet did not intend; the Hebrew Masoretic text is original. (The Hebrew reading makes good sense in context (Amos 9:12 alongside 9:7-8 and the Edom oracles), and the Greek requires two changes to it.)
• ◆Luke, composing James's speech in Greek, supplied the Septuagint form; the historical James may have argued from the Hebrew, whose 'nations that bear My name' could carry his point. (Acts is written in Greek for Greek readers; the phrase 'called by My name' is common to both traditions.)

Also drawn on

• ◆Jeremiah 12:15: The opening 'After this I will return' is not in Amos; it is commonly traced to the Greek form of this verse, which speaks of God returning to have compassion.
• ◆Isaiah 45:21: The closing 'that have been known for ages' is not in Amos either; it echoes this verse's 'Who announced it from ancient times?' and its claim that God foretold his purposes long ago.

Which text, and how we can tell

Paul's wording matches the Greek translation word for word (God rather than the LORD, the passive form of the verb, it was credited); the Hebrew has the divine name and, strictly, an active verb, he credited it, which BSB already renders passively. The only visible divergence is God versus LORD, and the LXX has it.

What changed

• ◆substitution. 'Abram' becomes 'Abraham', the patriarch's later name (Genesis 17:5), as everywhere in the New Testament; not a change in sense.
• ◆substitution. 'the LORD' (the divine name) becomes 'God', following the Septuagint rendering.

In its own setting

God has just promised the childless Abram offspring as numerous as the stars. Verse 6 is the narrator's comment: Abram took God at his word, and God reckoned that trust to him as righteousness. The verse sits before circumcision (Genesis 17) and before the law, which is exactly the point Paul will later press.

What the New Testament does with it

Paul cites the verse as the scriptural proof that Abraham was justified by faith, not by works. He builds on the accounting language ('credited') to contrast a wage owed with a gift received (Romans 4:4-5), and on the timing of the verse to argue that the promise came before circumcision (4:9-12).

Where readers differ

• ◆Paul quotes the Septuagint form of Genesis 15:6, which matches the Hebrew in substance. (Word-for-word agreement between Romans 4:3 and the Greek of Genesis 15:6, including the passive verb and 'God' in place of the divine name.)
• ◆The Hebrew verb is active (literally, he credited it to him), so the passive is a translator's choice, not a Hebrew reading. (Standard Hebrew grammar of the verse; most English versions, BSB included, render it passively anyway.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Hebrew, Greek, and Paul agree word for word in substance. The only difference is invisible in Greek and in English: the Hebrew has the divine name (LORD), which the Greek renders 'Lord', the same word Paul has just used of Jesus in 10:9 and 10:12.

What changed

• ◆truncation. Only the first clause is quoted; 'for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has promised, among the remnant called by the LORD' is omitted.
• ◆referent shift. Joel's 'the LORD' (the God of Israel, by name) is read by Paul as 'the Lord' whom believers confess in 10:9 ('Jesus is Lord') and who 'is Lord of all' in 10:12.

In its own setting

Joel promises that after judgment God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, cosmic signs will precede the great Day of the LORD, and everyone who calls on the LORD's name will be saved; deliverance will be found on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem among a remnant. The name called on is the name of Israel's God, and the setting is Jerusalem on the day of judgment.

What the New Testament does with it

Paul quotes the first clause as the capstone of a chain: confessing 'Jesus is Lord' saves (10:9), there is no Jew-Greek difference because the same Lord is Lord of all who call on him (10:12), 'for' everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (10:13). He then asks how people can call on one they have not believed in, launching the argument for preaching. Joel's 'everyone' becomes the warrant for the gospel's reach to Gentiles.

Where readers differ

• ◆'The Lord' in Romans 10:13 is Jesus, so Paul applies a text about YHWH to Christ. (10:9 ('Jesus is Lord') and 10:12 ('the same Lord is Lord of all') govern the reference; the same verse is applied to Jesus in Acts 2:21 with 2:36.)
• ◆'The Lord' retains its reference to God the Father, and Paul's point is that calling on God through faith in Christ saves. (Joel's text is about God; Paul does not explicitly say 'Jesus' in 10:12-13.)
• ◆Paul's language is deliberately open, letting the two references coincide. (Paul elsewhere applies 'Lord' texts to both God and Christ within the same argument.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Both the Hebrew and the Greek psalm say God received gifts; Ephesians says he gave them. On the decisive verb the New Testament agrees with neither tradition. The Aramaic Targum and the Syriac Peshitta do read 'gave', which is where the discussion about Paul's source begins.

What changed

• ◆substitution. 'You have received gifts from men' becomes 'gave gifts to men': the direction of the giving is reversed.
• ◆referent shift. Second person address to God ('You have ascended') becomes third person narration about Christ ('When He ascended').
• ◆omission. 'even from the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there' is dropped.

In its own setting

Psalm 68 is a victory procession: God marches from Sinai, scatters kings, and ascends his chosen mountain, Zion. Verse 18 pictures the conqueror going up to his sanctuary with captives in train and receiving tribute from the defeated, even the rebellious, so that he may take up residence among them. The gifts flow toward God, as spoils and homage.

What the New Testament does with it

Paul cites the verse to ground the claim that the ascended Christ distributes grace to each believer (4:7) and specifically gives the church its ministers (4:11). He then argues from 'ascended' to a prior 'descended' (4:9-10). The reversed verb is the hinge: Christ the victor does not collect tribute but hands out gifts.

Where readers differ

• ◆Paul reflects an existing Jewish interpretive tradition, attested in the Targum and Peshitta, in which the verse read 'gave gifts to men'. (The Targum on this psalm explicitly has Moses giving the law to the sons of men; the Peshitta reads 'gave'.)
• ◆Paul (or a Christian hymn he quotes) deliberately reworked the psalm to make the ascended Christ the giver, a permissible midrashic move in his setting. (No Greek or Hebrew manuscript reads 'gave'; the change fits Paul's argument too precisely to be accidental.)
• ◆The Hebrew verb can carry the sense of taking in order to give, so 'gave' is a legitimate rendering of the received text. (Argued from a possible extended sense of the verb and from the psalm's context of God dwelling among the recipients; a minority position.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Hebrews reproduces the Septuagint's 'body' against the Hebrew's 'ears'; the rest of the quotation also tracks the Greek psalm closely. One clause differs from Brenton's text ('You took no delight' where Brenton has 'thou didst not require'), which matches the wording found in some Greek manuscripts of the psalm rather than the one Brenton translated.

What changed

• ◆substitution. 'my ears You have opened' (Hebrew) is replaced by 'a body You prepared for Me' (Septuagint reading).
• ◆substitution. 'You did not require' (Hebrew, and Brenton's Greek) becomes 'You took no delight'.
• ◆reordering. 'Here I am, I have come— it is written about me in the scroll: I delight to do Your will' is rearranged so that 'I have come' is attached to 'to do Your will': 'Here I am, it is written about Me in the scroll: I have come to do Your will'.
• ◆omission. 'Your law is within my heart' (end of Psalm 40:8) is dropped, and 'O my God' becomes 'O God'.
• ◆referent shift. The psalmist's first-person 'I' becomes the voice of Christ entering the world.

In its own setting

Psalm 40 is a song of thanksgiving by someone God has rescued from a pit, who then turns to what God actually wants from him. Sacrifices, he says, are not the point; an opened ear (a readiness to hear and obey) is, and so he offers himself: 'I have come ... I delight to do Your will.' The second half of the psalm (verses 11 onward) becomes a plea for further rescue, so the speaker is a grateful but still-endangered worshipper, not a sinless figure.

What the New Testament does with it

The author of Hebrews reads the psalm as the words of Christ at his incarnation. Sacrifice is set aside and a 'body' is prepared instead; Christ's 'I have come to do Your will' is then interpreted (10:8-10) as God taking away the first to establish the second (10:9: 'He takes away the first to establish the second'), and the will that sanctifies us is carried out 'through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all'. The word 'body' from verse 5 is picked up directly in verse 10.

Where readers differ

• ◆The Greek translator rendered 'ears' as 'body' interpretively, taking the ear as a part standing for the whole obedient person. (The rest of the Greek psalm is a careful translation, and 'body' preserves the sense of a self offered in obedience.)
• ◆'Body' arose inside the Greek text by a copying error, the final letter of the preceding word and the first letters of 'ears' being misread as 'body'. (A well-known conjecture from the shape of the Greek words; it explains the change mechanically but rests on reconstruction rather than a surviving manuscript with 'ears'.)
• ◆The Greek reflects a Hebrew text different from the Masoretic one. (Argued from the Septuagint's independent value elsewhere; no Hebrew manuscript of this verse with such a reading is known.)

Which text, and how we can tell

Hebrew and Greek agree, and Peter's Greek reproduces the Greek psalm's words ('tasted', 'that the Lord is good') exactly, changing only the imperative to a past tense. Nothing distinguishes the traditions here.

What changed

• ◆substitution. The psalm's invitation 'Taste and see' becomes a statement of fact about the readers, 'you have tasted'; 'and see' is dropped.
• ◆truncation. 'blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!' is not carried over.
• ◆referent shift. 'the LORD' (the divine name) in the psalm is 'the Lord' whom the next verse identifies as the living stone, Christ ('As you come to Him').

In its own setting

Psalm 34 is a thanksgiving attributed to David after escaping from Abimelech (its title). The singer has cried out and been heard, and now invites others to try God's goodness for themselves: taste and see, take refuge, fear the LORD, and you will lack nothing. It is an invitation to trust in the God of Israel.

What the New Testament does with it

Peter folds the psalm's words into his own sentence with no marker at all: the readers, like newborns craving milk, should crave the word 'now that you have tasted that the Lord is good'. The next verse turns immediately to 'Him, the living stone', so the Lord whose goodness they have tasted is Christ. In Greek 'good' (chrestos) sounds like 'Christ' (Christos), a pun many readers have heard in the verse.

Where readers differ

• ◆This is a quotation: the words are the Greek psalm's, and Peter quotes the same psalm at length in 3:10-12. (Verbatim wording; the author demonstrably knows and uses Psalm 34.)
• ◆This is an allusion, because the words are embedded in Peter's sentence without any introduction and adapted to it. (Standard indexes that count only formula-introduced citations exclude it.)
• ◆The chrestos/Christos wordplay is intended and signals that 'the Lord' is Christ. (The immediate turn to 'Him, the living stone' in 2:4; contested because the pun cannot be proven from the text alone.)