In Heb. 10:5 we have a quotation from the Septuagint where it differs widely from the Hebrew of Psa. 40:7. This reads: "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened" (Heb. bored or digged). But the apostle quotes after the Septuagint: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me." The attempted explanations of this difference are not very satisfactory. It is to be noticed, however, that the apostle builds no essential part of his argument upon the clause in question.
In the long quotation from Jeremiah in Heb. 8:8-12, the clause, "and I regarded them not" (ver. 9), is perhaps correct for substance; since many prefer to render the corresponding Hebrew clause not as in our version—"though I was a husband unto them,"—but, "and I rejected them."
When, on the contrary, the spirit and scope of a passage are lost in the version of the Seventy, the New Testament writers quote directly from the Hebrew. Examples are the following:
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt. 2:15. Here the Seventy render: "Out of Egypt I called my children," a variation from the original which makes the passage inapplicable; since Israel, as God's first-born son (Exod. 4:22, 23), was the type of Christ, and not the individual Israelites.
Again, to the passage Isa. 42:1-4, quoted in Matt. 12:18-21, the Septuagint gives a wrong turn by the introductory words: "Jacob my son, I will help him: Israel my chosen, my soul hath accepted him: I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles," etc.; whereas the Hebrew speaks not of Jacob and Israel, but of God's servant: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth," etc. Matthew accordingly follows the Hebrew, yet in a very free manner: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul delighteth," etc.
For other examples see Mal. 3:1, as quoted by Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; Isa. 9:1, 2, as quoted by Matt. 4:15, 16.
3. Passing now to the consideration of the New Testament citations on the side of their inward contents, the first question, that arises has respect to the so-called principle of accommodation. There is a sense in which the writers of the New Testament sometimes employ the language of the Old in the way of accommodation; that is, they use its phraseology, originally applied in a different connection, simply as expressing in an apt and forcible manner the thoughts which they wish to convey. Of this we have a beautiful example in Rom. 10:18, where the apostle says, in reference to the proclamation of the gospel: "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world," meaning that what the psalmist says of the instruction given by the heavens, Psa. 19:1-4, is true of the preaching of the word; so that none are excusable for their unbelief. Another striking example is found in the same chapter (ver. 6-8), where "phraseology originally used by Moses to express the way of justification contained in the law (Deut. 30:11-14) is adapted to the gospel as properly descriptive of the salvation propounded in it." Davidson's Hermeneutics, p. 471.
But that the Saviour and his apostles used accommodation in the commonly received sense of the term; that is, that they quoted, in accommodation to the ideas of their age, passages from the Old Testament as applicable to the Messiah and his kingdom, which they knew to have no such application when fairly and legitimately interpreted; that, for example, they used the hundred and tenth psalm as a prophecy of the Messiah (Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34, 35; Heb. 1:13), simply because this was the current interpretation of their times—this is not to be admitted for a moment. That the Saviour dealt prudently with the prejudices of his age is admitted; but he did not build upon them his claim to be the Messiah, nor solemnly appeal to the authority of Moses and the prophets knowing this to be only a dream of fanciful interpretation. If Christ and his apostles taught any thing, it was that he had come in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament, and in fulfilment of these prophecies. Did they indeed, in all this, only act upon the maxim which Paul rejects with abhorrence as damnable? "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil that good may come? whose damnation is just."
4. The writers of the New Testament often cite the Old by way of argument. Thus the Saviour argues against divorce at the husband's will "for every cause" by an appeal to the original institution of marriage (Matt. 19:3-6); and Paul proves that the man is the head of the woman, and that she owes subjection to him, from the order of creation and its accompanying circumstances. 1 Cor. 11:8, 9; 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Respecting this class of quotations, it is only necessary to remark that the validity of the arguments depends on the historic truth and divine authority of the passages adduced. The Saviour and his apostles professedly build their arguments on the record of the Old Testament. If this is sand—mythical quicksand—their house falls, and their authority with it. But if the foundation is rock—an inspired record of facts—their house stands, and with it their character as truthful teachers.
5. Far more numerous are the passages which are cited as prophecies of Christ and his kingdom. These are introduced by various formulas: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet;" "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet;" "in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias;" "this day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears;" "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled;" "it is contained in Scripture;" "another Scripture saith;" "this that is written must yet be accomplished in me," etc.