The Predestination of the Greek OT, the Greek NT, and the Greek Language for the revealing of the Holy Trinity.

synergy

Well-known member
Belief in the Holy Trinity was not a human invention but was predestined by God, carefully prepared through history, language, and culture. The Greek language, the Greek OT (Septuagint), and Hellenistic Jewish thought all point to a divine setup for revealing the Holy Trinity in the fullness of time.

God Prepared Greek as the Perfect Theological Tool – Long before Christ, God orchestrated events so that Greek would become the dominant language of the ancient world. This wasn’t random. Greek had the precise vocabulary necessary to express complex theological truths, ensuring that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be clearly articulated without contradiction.

The Septuagint (Greek OT) was also predestined. The Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek centuries before Jesus’ birth was divinely ordained. It meant that Jews were already thinking about God in Greek terms while remaining monotheistic. This prepared the way for New Testament writers to use the same language to reveal the mystery of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jewish Monotheists Were Already Equipped for the Holy Trinity – Because many faithful Jews were fluent in Greek, they were uniquely prepared to grasp the revelation of the Holy Trinity. They understood the concept of God's Word (Logos, as in John 1:1) and God’s Spirit (Pneuma), which were already present in Jewish thought. The gospel didn’t introduce a "new" God but rather revealed the fullness of who God always was.

The Gospel Was Set to Spread Effectively – God ensured that Greek, a language spoken across the Roman world, would be the vehicle for His truth. The Holy Trinity was revealed at precisely the right moment in history when Greek was the perfect medium to express it, allowing the early Church to defend and proclaim this mystery globally.

All of this was God’s plan from the beginning. The Holy Trinity was not an afterthought or a theological puzzle pieced together later—it was always the reality of God’s nature. And through history, language, and cultural shifts, God's sovereignly prepared the world to receive this revelation at the exact right time.
 
Do you still accept the Hebrew?
The legitimacy of the Greek OT (LXX) was made manifest when the Apostles predominately quoted the LXX instead of any Hebrew-based OT present at that time to formulate their Epistles

As for the Hebrew text, there are several variations of it. The Masoretic text is the most prominent one but it is the most manipulated one. I'm ok with the Dead Sea Scroll version.

As for the MT (Masoretic Text) OT, it's a fact that non-believing Jews were not thrilled by the multitudes of Jews that were being converted into Christians. The non-believing Jews proceeded to rip out all of the OT books that their Hellenized Jewish colleagues wrote in Greek. The OT was an open canon and as such the Christian Jews could not appeal to any canon to raise an alarm against all those variations perpetrated on the Hebrew text.

Many scholars suggest that the MT reflects anti-Christian polemics, where certain passages that could support Christian messianic claims were subtly altered. For example: Psalm 22:16. The Dead Sea Scrolls & Septuagint has it as follows "They pierced my hands and my feet". The MT has it as follows: "Like a lion are my hands and my feet".

As for the JW's, their movement against the Apostles' usage of "Lord" instead of "Jehovah" can easily be attributed to their ignorance or distaste of the LXX.
 
Many scholars suggest that the MT reflects anti-Christian polemics, where certain passages that could support Christian messianic claims were subtly altered. For example: Psalm 22:16. The Dead Sea Scrolls & Septuagint has it as follows "They pierced my hands and my feet". The MT has it as follows: "Like a lion are my hands and my feet".
Excellent exposition from Dr. Michael Brown on this @synergy.

J.
 
Can you forward a link to Dr Brown's discussion? Thanks!


Here you go brother. My apologies for the late edit @synergy.

Psa 22:16 [17] For kelavim have surrounded me; the Adat Mere'im (congregation of evil men) have enclosed me; ka'aru yadai v'ragelai (they pierced my hands and my feet; see Isa 53:5; Zech 12:10 and medieval Hebrew Scripture manuscripts as well as the Targum HaShivim).

Psa 22:16 (21:16) For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
LXX.

Psa_22:16
NASB, NKJV,
RSV”they have pierced”
NRSV “shriveled” (Akkadian root)
TEV “tear at”
LXX “gouged” or “dig”
NJB, NEB “hack off”
JPSOA
(cf. Isa_38:13) “like lions (they maul, cf. Psa_22:13)”
REB (footnote) “bound”
NET Bible “like a lion they pin”
This verse is not quoted directly in the NT Gospels related to Jesus' crucifixion. Several other verses of this Psalm are. The real question is “What does the Hebrew say?”

1. The UBS Text Project (p. 198) gives “like a lion” (כארי, BDB 71) a “B” rating.

2. The verb “dig,” “bore,” or “pierce” comes from רוכ, BDB 468 II (found only here).

3. “Bound” or “tie” comes from the Greek translation of Aquila, Symmachus, the Latin translation of Jerome, and two Hebrew MSS (cf. UBS Handbook, p. 221). They assume the root is רכן, BDB 501, KB 497, but there are no OT examples of it.

4. See a good technical note in Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 37.

Usually this idea of being pierced refers to a violent death by sword or spear in battle (several different roots but two prophetically significant).

1. Zec_12:10 – BDB 201, KB 230 (cf. Joh_19:37; Rev_1:7)

2. Isa_53:5 – BDB 319, KB 320
The ambiguity (i.e., rarity, only here in the OT) of this word allows it to function in an OT sense and a NT sense. This Psalm must have had meaning in its day but obviously points beyond to the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Christ (i.e., nails pierced His hands and feet). The full meaning of many OT texts comes to light only in Christ (i.e., typology or direct prediction). I think it was Jesus Himself who showed these texts of His suffering and resurrection to the two on the road to Emmaus (cf. Luk_24:13-43) and they told the ones in the upper room. Just then He appeared to them and showed them His hands and feet (cf. Luk_24:36-43).


The Septuagint (LXX) of Psalm 22:16 (or 21:17 in the LXX numbering) reads:

"ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας"

This translates to "They dug [pierced] my hands and feet."

The key verb here, ὀρύσσω (ōryssō), means "to dig" or "to bore through," which strongly suggests piercing. This is significant because the Masoretic Text (MT) reads "כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי" (ka'ari yadai v'raglai), which is often interpreted as "like a lion, my hands and my feet," though this phrase is grammatically difficult in Hebrew. The difference arises because the LXX translators likely worked from a Hebrew Vorlage that read "כָּרוּ" (karu, "they pierced"), which closely resembles "כָּאֲרִי" (ka'ari, "like a lion").

This rendering in the LXX aligns with the Messianic interpretation, especially given its clear connection to crucifixion imagery, which is referenced in the New Testament (e.g., John 19:37, Revelation 1:7).

J.
 
Last edited:
As for the Hebrew text, there are several variations of it.

You do know there are many versions of the Greek OT?


Which of the following do you believe is the original inspired reading of Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he is called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the nations, and health to him."

Isaiah 9:6 MT

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
 
You do know there are many versions of the Greek OT?


Which of the following do you believe is the original inspired reading of Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he is called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the nations, and health to him."

Isaiah 9:6 MT

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
At first glance, the MT sounds better but I'm sure Jews have their ways on how to discount the words "Mighty God", in their minds at least. BTW, I don't care what Jews could possibly say, on their defense, about those words, as they are always consistently wrong when it comes to the Deity of Christ.

As for the LXX, the Angel of the Lord (of Great Counsel, in this case) is consistently no one other than the Preincarnate Jesus in the OT. This ends up being a wonderful proclamation of the future Incarnation of the Angel of the Lord. This takes away nothing from his Deity.
 
At first glance, the MT sounds better but I'm sure Jews have their ways on how to discount the words "Mighty God", in their minds at least. BTW, I don't care what Jews could possibly say, on their defense, about those words, as they are always consistently wrong when it comes to the Deity of Christ.

As for the LXX, the Angel of the Lord (of Great Counsel, in this case) is consistently no one other than the Preincarnate Jesus in the OT. This ends up being a wonderful proclamation of the future Incarnation of the Angel of the Lord. This takes away nothing from his Deity.
This might help @synergy.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/an...c Prophecy Objections,Michael L. Brown,-eBook

J.
 
Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Hebrew is very poor so I would not be a good apologist to non-believing Jews. I'll leave that up to people like you who understand Hebrew much better than I do. I'll stick with the English and Greek languages which I know very well.

Having said all the above, I have not heard from any Unitarian, like @Runningman, so far. Sounds like they are at a loss on how to respond to my OP.
 
Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Hebrew is very poor so I would not be a good apologist to non-believing Jews. I'll leave that up to people like you who understand Hebrew much better than I do. I'll stick with the English and Greek languages which I know very well.

Having said all the above, I have not heard from any Unitarian, like @Runningman, so far. Sounds like they are at a loss on how to respond to my OP.
Just be patient and never react brother.

J.
 
Well, I think the LXX can sometimes have the original correct reading, but there are many places where it is obviously a mistake or heavily paraphrased. It was used in the NT because it was the same language and commonly read, not because it is specially inspired over the MT. There is more of an argument to be made that the LXX was altered in response to Christianity than the MT.
 
Well, I think the LXX can sometimes have the original correct reading, but there are many places where it is obviously a mistake or heavily paraphrased. It was used in the NT because it was the same language and commonly read, not because it is specially inspired over the MT.
Well, Plato was of the same language and was much commonly read but you don't see it quoted in the NT. So what's quoted is not democratically elected. What's quoted by the Apostles was what was inspired.
There is more of an argument to be made that the LXX was altered in response to Christianity than the MT.
The floor is yours to prove your statement. That's going to be interesting because the LXX quotes are frozen within time in the NT.
 
You do know there are many versions of the Greek OT?


Which of the following do you believe is the original inspired reading of Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he is called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the nations, and health to him."

Isaiah 9:6 MT

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

There is only one that the apostles used. The others are late editions due to work of Jerome to oppose God. Origen is a crook. A liar.

Codex Alexandrinus is there for your review. Not I believe you will. You won't. You're a Hebrew Onlyist. You refuse to name a single superior reading from the singular ancient Greek stream.
 
Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Hebrew is very poor so I would not be a good apologist to non-believing Jews. I'll leave that up to people like you who understand Hebrew much better than I do. I'll stick with the English and Greek languages which I know very well.

Having said all the above, I have not heard from any Unitarian, like @Runningman, so far. Sounds like they are at a loss on how to respond to my OP.

Brown is a hack. Tov is by far the better source for authentic evidence.

No one is an expert on Hebrew. What survives was reconstructed. Even the DSS are a product of that reconstruction.
 
Well, I think the LXX can sometimes have the original correct reading, but there are many places where it is obviously a mistake or heavily paraphrased. It was used in the NT because it was the same language and commonly read, not because it is specially inspired over the MT. There is more of an argument to be made that the LXX was altered in response to Christianity than the MT.

Think? You keep acting like you actually know the subject, You don't. All this "thinking" means nothing.

Evidence?

Take Codex Alexandrinus and do your worst to it.....
 
Well, Plato was of the same language and was much commonly read but you don't see it quoted in the NT. So what's quoted is not democratically elected. What's quoted by the Apostles was what was inspired.

The floor is yours to prove your statement. That's going to be interesting because the LXX quotes are frozen within time in the NT.

He doesn't know the subject. The very idea that the Greek NT was altered to match the LXX sets him against historical Christianity.

He will not engage. He is full of false claims and nonsense. The Hebrew of Moses has disappeared and only survives in the Greek OT. They are promoting the silliness of the ancient enemies of Messiah in Christ Jesus. His theology betrays him.
 

Are you a follower of Brown? If you will take his side, I'll be glad to debate this with you. You avoid hard questions because you know the limitation of your arguments.

I'll take Codex Alexandrinus against anything you want to offer. It has stood the test of time and is the premier source for Historical Christianity.

Do you prefer losing the Virgin Birth to the MT and DSS? Start there.
 
Back
Top Bottom