Early Christianity on: The Invisibility of God the Father (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbIWDwJK6jM

Early Christianity on the Invisibility of God the Father

Post-Apostolic Church

INTRO

This is the eleventh video in a series on what the Pre-Nicene Christians believed about the Divinity.  And this is the eighth video about God the Father.

The invisibility of God the Father is the belief that He is beyond human sight.  This is not a very well-known belief in Christianity.  What have we heard people say about it?  Some might say, “People have seen God with their own eyes,” or, “I have seen God.”  Others might say, “Moses saw God.”  Others might say, “No one has ever seen God.”  Others might say, “If someone ever saw God, they would die.”

Now, this is an attribute of Divinity that is true of God the Father but is not true of God’s Son.

PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS: NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD AND NO ONE CAN SEE GOD

The early Christians believed that God the Father is invisible to human sight and cannot be seen.  During their time, this was a well-known belief.  It appears that this concept also existed in Judaism.  Justin Martyr dialoged with a Jew named Trypho about who had appeared in the burning bush and spoke with Moses.  As a point of agreement between them, Justin wrote,

He who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.  (Justin Martyr.  AD 160.  ANF, vol 1, page 227.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lx.html, “I again replied…”)

Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp who was a student of the apostle John, quoted him and wrote,

For he says, “No man has seen God at any time,” unless, “The only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him].” *  For He, the Son who is in the bosom, declares to all: the Father, who is invisible.  (Irenaeus.  AD 180.  ANF, vol 1, page 427.)

* John 1:18

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html, 6)

Marcus Minucius Felix wrote,

God, the Parent of all, has neither beginning nor end—that He who gives birth to all gives perpetuity to Himself—that He who was before the world, was Himself to Himself instead of the world?  He orders everything, whatever it is, by a word; arranges it by His wisdom; perfects it by His power.  He can neither be seen—He is brighter than light; nor can [He] be grasped—He is purer than touch.  (Marcus Minucius Felix.  AD 210.  ANF, vol 4, page 183.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iv.iii.xviii.html)

SCRIPTURES: NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD AND NO ONE CAN SEE GOD

As mentioned before, the invisibility of God is not a very well-known belief today.  The most popular passage that the early Christians quoted about this belief is found in Exodus.  God told Moses,

You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.  (Ex 33:20)

Now, one might say, “The event with Moses and God the Father was only regarded as God’s face, His true and full glory.”  Irenaeus would disagree.  He wrote,

They falsely hold, that the Creator was seen by the prophets.  But this passage, “No man shall see God and live,” * they would interpret as spoken of His greatness unseen and unknown by all.  And indeed that these words, “No man shall see God,” are spoken concerning the invisible Father, the Maker of the universe, is evident to us all.  (Irenaeus.  AD 180.  ANF, vol 1, page 344.)

* Ex 33:20

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xx.html, 2)

About whether Moses or anyone has seen God the Father, the apostle John wrote,

No one has seen God at any time.  (1John 4:12, NASB)

Have you ever noticed these words from John before?  They might come as a surprise to many.  In his gospel, John said the same thing and explained a little more.

No one has ever seen God.  The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him.  (John 1:18)

We see from John that no one has ever seen God the Father, who is invisible.  Then, Paul takes it a step further and shows how truly invisible God the Father is.  In the next Scripture, when reading these titles of the Divinity, it is easy to assume that it is about the Son of God.  But it is really about God the Father.  Paul wrote,

God will bring this about in His own time.  He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, the only One who has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; no one has seen or can see Him, to Him be honor and eternal might.  Amen.  (1Tim 6:15-16)

The apostle Paul wrote that not only has no one ever seen God the Father but no one can see Him.

The contrast between the invisibility of God the Father and visibility of the Son of God is discussed in my previous video about the Persons of God.  Tertullian gave this good explanation.  He wrote,

For even in the Old Testament He had declared, “No man shall see me, and live.” * He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He [Jesus Christ] God who appeared as the Son of God.  But with us Christ is received in the Person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God.  Therefore, whatever attributes you [Marcionites] require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and calm, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers.  In fact, those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be believed to be in the Son, who has been seen, and heard, and encountered, the Witness and Servant of the Father, uniting in Himself man and God, God in mighty deeds, in weak ones man, in order that He may give to man as much as He takes from God.  (Tertullian.  AD 207.  ANF, vol 3, page 319.)

* Ex 33:20

(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.iii.xxvii.html)

As Paul wrote,

He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  (Col 1:15)

Between the words of Moses, John, and Paul, this teaching that God the Father is invisible must be true.  If, for you, this is confusing or raises questions, that is OK.  Let’s look at some more writings from the early Christians that might help us further understand the invisibility of God the Father.

PEOPLE WHO SAW GOD

In Christian communities today, there is often talk of people seeing God.  Have people truly seen the Father?  According to what we have looked at in the early Christian writings and in Scripture, no, they have not seen God the Father.  However, what they are saying is not incorrect.  They may have not literally or physically seen God the Father, but what they mean is that they have experienced God in a very incredible way.  When people experience God in their lives, many will describe that experience as if they had seen God.  For example, other expressions that describe experiencing God may include: finding God, encountering God, walking with God, being touched by God, or entering the presence of God.  None of these phrases are to be taken literally, and they are not wrong.  They are mankind’s attempts to describe their experiences with a divine God.  After all, there are Scriptures that use similar language when people had a special experience with God.  This is what Melito was getting at when he wrote,

There is a God, the Father of all, who never came into being, neither was ever made, and by whose will all things exist.  He also made the stars, that His works may see one another; and He conceals Himself in His power from all His works: for it is not permitted to any being subject to change to see Him who changes not.  But those who are mindful of His words, and are admitted into that covenant which is unchangeable, they see God—so far as it is possible for them to see Him.  (Melito.  AD 170.  ANF, vol 1, page 755.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ii.html, “Again, there are persons who say…”)

Irenaeus gave us a clear explanation when he wrote,

The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” *  But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, “no man shall see God and live,” ** for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict: “For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God.” ***  For man does not see God by his own powers.  But when He pleases, He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills.  For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son.  (Irenaeus.  AD 180.  ANF, vol 1, page 489.)

* Matt 5:8

** Ex 33:20

*** Luke 18:27

(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxi.html, 5)

In short, instances where people “see” God, it is about their experience with God and is not to be taken literally or physically.

But what about the times in the Scriptures when people said they saw God?  Novatian wrote,

Moses tells us in another place that “God was seen of Abraham.” *  And yet the same Moses hears from God, that “no man can see God and live.” **  If God cannot be seen, how was God seen?  Or if He was seen, how is it that He cannot be seen?  For John also says, “No man has seen God at any time;” *** and the Apostle Paul, “Whom no man has seen, nor can see.” ****  But certainly the Scripture does not lie.  Therefore, truly, God was seen from where it may be understood that it was not the Father who was seen, seeing that He never was seen, but the Son, who has both been accustomed to descend, and to be seen because He has descended.  For He is the image of the invisible God.  (Novatian.  AD 235.  ANF, vol 5, page 627-628.)

* Gen 12:7

** Ex 33:20

*** 1John 4:12

**** 1Tim 6:16

Though Novatian says it very well and plainly, he also brings up another deep and interesting belief of the early Christians.  He says that when people in the Old Testament saw God, they didn’t see the Father but the Son.  We will discuss this in a much later video about the Angel of the Lord.  Please stay tuned.

WILL WE EVER SEE GOD’S FACE?

If we cannot see the Father’s face, will we ever be able to truly, literally see His face?  The Scriptures have made us a promise and God cannot lie.  The sixth Beatitude states,

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  (Matt 5:8, NASB)

Clement of Alexandria wrote,

We find in Moses: “No man shall see My face, and live.” *  For it is evident that no one during the period of life has been able to apprehend God clearly.  But “the pure in heart shall see God,” ** when they arrive at the final perfection.  (Clement of Alexandria.  AD 195.  ANF, vol 2, page 446.)

* Ex 33:20

** Matt 5:8

At the very end of all things, John tells us that God the Father will live with us in a whole new way.  The apostle John wrote,

Then I heard a loud voice from the throne: “Look!  God’s dwelling is with humanity, and He will live with them.  They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God….”  They will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.  (Rev 21:3, 22:4)

When all things are completed, mankind will truly and literally be able to see God’s face.  And so these words of David can be our words also as we look forward to the final perfection:

My heart said to You, “I have diligently sought Your face.  Your face, O Lord, I will seek.”  (Ps 27:8, Brenton)

Blessings and so forth.

BONUS:

Tertullian’s message to the Gnostics regarding the unseen Father and seen Son.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xv.html

Update - April 2019

With much joy, I posted a new video on Friday.

I am planning to post the next video, which is done, on April 12.  It will be The Invisibility of God the Father.

This got me thinking.  The first mini-series I did was on the Divinity of God.  I didn't expect those videos to be a big deal.  But apparently, I forgot about the Oneness churches.  A received a lot of comments from them about how ridiculous the idea of the Trinity is.

In my second video (on Monarchianism), I stated that the early Christians believed that Monarchianism was heresy.  Personally, I would not go that far.  While I believe the Scriptures show the idea of the Trinity, the Scriptures do not condemn someone for having a different idea about the nature of the Persons of God.  So I will fully stand behind the doctrine of the Trinity, but I also believe that Christians should be mindful of their doctrine and think twice before condemning someone over a belief.  After all, I began that whole series with a video about Understanding God.  The main goal of that video was to establish a foundation of humility and open-mindedness.

And so with the upcoming video on the Invisibility of God, it has got me thinking about "triggering" viewers.  Well, it is something that will happen more often.  With this upcoming video, I'm wondering if it will trigger a particular Christian group.

Yet, with the Pre-Nicene Christians, I believe there will be some doctrine or some practice that might trigger every Christian.  Christianity has changed so much since those early centuries.  I remember some times when I was shocked when I learned about a couple of their beliefs and practices.

We all should be mindful about being open-minded.  As Paul says, we test everything.  I pray that as we test the faith and practices of the early Christians, we will choose to hang on to the good, as Paul also says.

Blessings and so forth!

Early Christianity on: The Omnipresence of God the Father (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gut1IRaPhFA

Early Christianity on the Omnipresence of God the Father

Post-Apostolic Church

INTRO

This is the tenth video in a series on what the Pre-Nicene Christians believed about the Divinity.  And this is the seventh video about God the Father.

To be omnipresent means to be present in all places and the same time.  A common belief in Christianity is that God the Father is omnipresent.  What have we heard people say about it?  [0.3] Some might say, “God is in heaven.”  Others might say, “God is everywhere.”  Others might say, “God is in each of us.”

PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANS: GOD IS EVERYWHERE AND CANNOT BE CONTAINED

The early Christians believed that God the Father is everywhere.  God is in every place.  He cannot be confined, restricted, nor contained in any place.  Melito wrote,

There are persons who say:  It is for the honor of God that we make the image: that is, in order that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view.  But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He does not know it.  (Melito.  AD 170.  ANF, vol 8, page 755.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ii.html, “There are, however, persons…”)

Theophilus wrote,

This is the attribute of God, the Highest and Almighty, and the living God, not only to be everywhere present, but also to see all things and to hear all, and by no means to be confined in a place.  For if He were, then the place containing Him would be greater than He.  For that which contains is greater than that which is contained.  For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all.  (Theophilus.  AD 175.  ANF, vol 2, page 95.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.iii.html, “For if the children begotten...”)

Clement of Alexandria wrote,

God is not in darkness or in a place, but above both space and time, and qualities of objects.  Therefore, neither is He at any time in a part, either as containing or as contained, either by limitation or by section.  “For what house will you build to Me?” says the Lord.*  No, He has not even built one for Himself, since He cannot be contained.  And though heaven be called His throne, not even in this way is He contained.  (Clement of Alexandria.  AD 195.  ANF, vol 2, page 348.)

* Is 66:1

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ii.ii.html, “Be not elated on account…”)

In the last video, we looked at how God exists outside of and encompasses time.  In the same way, Clement says that God exists outside of and encompasses space.  So God the Father transcends both time and space.

Tertullian wrote,

For as the Creator is shown to be God, God without any doubt, from the fact that all things are His, and nothing is strange to Him; [in contrast] the rival god is seen to be no god, from the circumstance that nothing is his, and, therefore, all things are strange to him.  Since, then, the universe belongs to the Creator, I see no room for any other god.  All things are full of their Author, and occupied by Him.  If in created beings there be any portion of space anywhere void of Deity, clearly, the void will be of a false deity.*  (Tertullian.  AD 207.  ANF, vol 3, page 278-279.)

* See Matt 12:43-45 (Luke 11:24-26).  See also Luke 17:20-21, “within you.”

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.ii.xi.html)

Tertullian addresses the question on whether God is found within each person.  God does live in a person but only when that person is not living according to a false deity and is living according to God the Father.  Tertullian is saying that, for those who reject God the Father, they have a void in them which has been filled with a false deity.

The belief of God’s omnipresence is difficult for humans to understand.  Do they know of any other thing that exists in every place?  Is there an illustration that we can compare this to?  Well, not even air exists in every place since it does not exist within solids nor in the vacuum of space.  Something that makes this concept even more difficult to understand is the Scriptures that speak of God the Father coming down to men.  If God leaves one place or arrives at another, does that mean there are certain places where God is or where God is not?  Origen helped explain this and wrote,

The illustrious Celsus, taking occasion I know not from what, next raises an additional objection against us, as if we asserted that “God Himself will come down to men.”  He imagines also that it follows from this, that “He has left His own abode.”  For he does not know the power of God, and that “the Spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which upholds all things has knowledge of the voice.” *  Nor is he able to understand the words, “ ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the Lord.” **  Nor does he see that, according to the doctrine of Christianity, we all “in Him live, and move, and have our being,” *** as Paul also taught in his address to the Athenians.  Therefore, although the God of the universe should through His own power descend with Jesus into the life of men, and although the Word which was in the beginning with God, which is also God Himself, should come to us, He does not give His place or vacate His own seat, so that one place should be empty of Him, and another which did not formerly contain Him be filled.  But the power and divinity of God comes through him whom God chooses, and resides in him in whom it finds a place, not changing its situation, nor leaving its own place empty and filling another.  For, in speaking of His quitting one place and occupying another, we do not mean such expressions to be taken topically, but we say that the soul of the bad man, and of him who is overwhelmed in wickedness, is abandoned by God, while we mean that the soul of him who wishes to live virtuously, or of him who is making progress (in a virtuous life), or who is already living conformably toward, is filled with or becomes a partaker of the Divine Spirit.  (Origen.  AD 248.  ANF, vol 4, page 499.)

* Wisdom 1:7

** Jer 23:24

*** Acts 17:28

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.iv.v.html)

Explaining the same thing from another angle, Origen wrote,

We do not ask the question, “How shall we go to God?” as though we thought that God existed in some place.  God is of too excellent a nature for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not confined by anything whatever.  The precept, therefore, “Thou shalt walk after the Lord thy God,” * does not command a bodily approach to God.  Neither does the prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he says in his prayer, “My soul follows close after You.”  **  Therefore, Celsus misrepresents us, when he says that we expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and to touch Him sensibly with our hands.  (Origen.  AD 248.  ANF, vol 4, page 624.)

* Deut 13:4

** Psalm 63:8

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.vii.xxxiv.html)

SCRIPTURES: GOD IS EVERYWHERE

What do the Scriptures say about God’s omnipresence?  When Solomon began building a temple for God, he wrote,

But who is able to build a temple for Him, since even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Him?  Who am I then that I should build a temple for Him except as a place to burn incense before Him?  (2Chr 2:6)

And when Solomon finished the temple and dedicated it, he prayed,

But will God indeed live on earth?  Even heaven, the highest heaven, cannot contain You, much less this temple I have built.  (1Kings 8:27)

Preaching about all of mankind, Paul said,

In Him we live and move and exist.  (Acts 17:28)

Jeremiah wrote these words from God,

Will anyone hide himself in secret places, and I not see him?  Do I not fill heaven and earth?  (Jer 23:24, Brenton)

And so from the mouth of God the Father, He reveals to us that He fills heaven and earth—each and every place.  There is no place where He is not present.

CONCLUSION

God the Father is omnipresent.  Whether at locations in heaven, locations on earth, or even within ourselves, God is in every place.

But it is worth talking more about God being in us.  Tertullian wrote about those who do not live for God, having a void in their life which is filled with false gods.  God is in every place without exception, but the question that remains for each person is: will they accept God’s presence in their life?  Will they allow God’s will to be done in them as it is in heaven?  Origen wrote, continuing his thoughts about being filled with or becoming a partaker of the divine Spirit and God’s power,

And if we must speak of a change in any one by the appearing of the power of God, and by the entrance of the word among men, we shall not be reluctant to speak of changing from a wicked to a virtuous, from a dissolute [a self-indulgent] to a temperate, and from a superstitious to a religious life, [that is,] the person who has allowed the word of God to find entrance into his soul.  (Origen.  AD 248.  ANF, vol 4, page 499.)

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.iv.v.html)

Blessings and so forth.

Update - March 2019

As I mentioned in my update post in January, 2019 will be a much better year for this channel.

It is my expectation that before the end of the summer, the video series on God the Father will be complete.  Here are the remaining videos in this series:

Early Christianity on the Omnipresence of God the Father
Early Christianity on the Invisibility of God the Father
Early Christianity on the Personification of God the Father
Early Christianity on the Emotions of God the Father
Early Christianity on the Name of God the Father

The research and the scripts are done.  So these videos are very close to be released!

Comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Using Matthew 6-12 (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP5hN6CTDz4

Septuagint or Masoretic – Matthew 6-12

Post-Apostolic Church

INTRO

Happy Septuagint Day!  Let’s continue comparing the Hebrew Masoretic with the Greek Septuagint by going through the New Testament and seeing which manuscript family the writers used when quoting from the Old Testament.  In this video, we will be looking at Matthew chapters 6 to 12.  The running count of verses will continue from the last video.

FESTIVAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT

But before diving back into the gospel of Matthew, there is another aspect of the Septuagint’s history that is worth mentioning.  As explained in previous videos in this series, the Septuagint was universally accepted by the Jews.  One of the ways the Septuagint was celebrated is seen in what Philo of Alexandria said about an annual festival which occurred in his hometown of Alexandria, the same town and exact location where the Septuagint was originally translated.  Philo was a Jewish philosopher from the early first century and wrote the following around AD 40 or before.

Even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated on the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, giving reverence to the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh.  And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and [they] feasted with their family and friends, thinking the shore [was] at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace.  (Philo of Alexandria.  AD 40 or earlier.  Works of Philo Judaeus, Moses 2, VII, 41-42.)

(https://www.ccel.org/ccel/philo/works.iii.xxvi.html)

This annual festival occurred while Jesus walked the earth!

MATTHEW 8:17

Matthew 8:17 is about how Jesus would cure demon possession and the sick.  It reads,

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “He took our infirmities, and bore our diseases.”  (Matt 8:17 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Isaiah 53:4.  The Masoretic reads,

He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.  (Is 53:4 (ASV))

While Matthew speaks about infirmities, weaknesses, and diseases, Isaiah speaks about griefs and sorrows.

The Septuagint reads,

This one bore our sins, and with respect to us, was grieved.  (Is 53:4 (LXX literal))

The Septuagint is very different here.  First, it does not use the masculine pronoun but “this one.”  Second, it does not mention anything about infirmities, weaknesses, or diseases but specifically says that He will bear our sins.  This should perk the ears of every Christian.  The Messiah bearing the sins of the world is not new for the seasoned Christian.  How excellent it is for the Septuagint to explicitly say this!  However, it is different for how Matthew renders this verse.  Third, the Septuagint does not say that He would carry our diseases or sorrows, but it speaks of His grief because of us.  Now, as for the similarities, the Septuagint speaks about grief, which Matthew does but the Masoretic does not.

Which Old Testament family does Matthew follow?  His quotation is different from both the Masoretic and the Septuagint.  As discussed in earlier videos, this does not cause a serious problem.  But if one had to choose which of today’s Old Testament more closely matches Matthew’s quotation, it would be the Masoretic.

[Verses: 16.  Both: 7.  LXX: 4.  MT: 3.]

MATTHEW 9:13

Matthew 9:13 address a problem with the Pharisees when they rebuked Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners.  It reads,

Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.  For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.  (Matt 9:13 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Hosea 6:6.  The Masoretic reads,

I desire goodness [literally: kindness], and not sacrifice.  (Hos 6:6 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

I desire mercy [literally: compassion], and not sacrifice.  (Hos 6:6 (literal))

With the Masoretic, is kindness the same as compassion?  Not in this case because the Hebrew word for kindness [chesed] is different from the Hebrew word for compassion [racham].  On the Greek side, Matthew uses the exact same word as the Septuagint [eleos].  In fact, Matthew’s quotation is letter for letter from the Septuagint.  He is following the Septuagint.

[Verses: 17.  Both: 7.  LXX: 5.  MT: 3.]

MATTHEW 10:35-36

Matthew 10:35-36 is when Jesus is teaching about how His coming to the earth will cause people to become enemies.  After all, the darkness hates the Light.  It reads,

I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.  (Matt 10:35-36 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Micah 7:6.  The Masoretic reads,

The son dishonors the father, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.  (Mic 7:6 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

A son disgraces a father, a daughter rises up over her mother, a bride over her mother-in-law; a man’s adversaries are all the men in his house.  (Mic 7:6 (literal))

All manuscripts are in agreement except that the Septuagint adds “all.”  For that reason alone, we can say that Matthew follows the Masoretic here.

[Verses: 18.  Both: 7.  LXX: 5.  MT: 4.]

MATTHEW 11:10

Matthew 11:10 is Jesus talking about John the Baptist and the prophecy he fulfilled.  It reads,

Behold, I sent my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you.  (Matt 11:10 (ASV))

In the previous video, it was mentioned that Jesus combined or condensed various passages into one passage.  First, let’s look at the more well-known Old Testament passage, Malachi 3:1.  The Masoretic reads,

Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.  (Mal 3:1 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey [literally: prepare] the way before me.  (Mal 3:1 (Brenton))

As we see, the Masoretic and Septuagint perfectly agree.  So why does Matthew talk about “before your face” and speak in the second person rather than first person?  While the Israelites were receiving the Law from Moses at Mount Sinai, the Masoretic says at Exodus 23:20,

I am going to send an angel before you to protect you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared.  (Ex 23:20 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

Behold, I send out my messenger prior to your face, in order that he guards you in the way.  In that manner, he will introduce you into the very land which I prepare for you.  (Ex 23:20 (literal))

Let’s compare these two Old Testament verses and their languages to Matthew.  The first difference is Matthew’s mention of “face,” which is only found in the Septuagint’s Exodus 23:20.  The second difference is that this messenger will prepare the way.  This is not found in Exodus 23:20 but in both the Hebrew and Greek in Malachi 3:1.  So the Hebrew and Greek agree about the preparation when reading from Malachi.  Prepare for who?  Matthew speaks in the second person, which is not found in Malachi.  So the Hebrew and Greek agree when reading from Exodus.  The best explanation of what is happening here is that Jesus is combining and condensing two Old Testament prophecies, one from Exodus and one from Malachi.

But are there differences between the Hebrew and the Greek?  The only significant difference is the mention of “your face,” which only appears in Exodus 23:20 in the Septuagint.  If someone had to choose which manuscript family Matthew used, it would be the Septuagint.

[Verses: 19.  Both: 7.  LXX: 6.  MT: 4.]

MATTHEW 11:23

In Matthew 11:23, Jesus is condemning Chorazin and Capernaum for their unbelief.  He said,

You, Capernaum, shall you be exalted unto heaven?  You shall go down unto Hades.  (Matt 11:23 (ASV))

Jesus is combining and condensing Isaiah 14:13,15.  He doesn’t quote from verse 13 about being exalted unto heaven but obviously refers to it.  Jesus does quote verse 15.  The Masoretic reads,

You shall be brought down to Sheol.  (Is 14:15 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

You shall descend into Hades.  (Is 14:15 (literal))

The words for “be brought down” and “descend” are the same between the languages.  Same with Hades and Sheol.  All the readings agree.

[Verses: 20.  Both: 8.  LXX: 6.  MT: 4.]

We have looked at 20 verses thus far.  2 verses were found in neither.  8 verses were found in both.  6 verses agreed with the Septuagint.  4 verses agreed with the Masoretic.  What could we conclude at this point?  We see that, usually, the Masoretic and the Septuagint agree.  We see that the number of times they disagree is more than the number of times they agree.  But we haven’t learned anything conclusive on whether the Masoretic or Septuagint is the more reliable Old Testament.  So let’s continue.

MATTHEW 11:29

In Matthew 11:29, Jesus is saying that His way is easier than the way of the world and rejection of Him.  He said,

Take My yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls.  (Matt 11:29 (ASV))

Finding rest for your souls is a quotation from Jeremiah 6:16.  The Masoretic reads,

And you shall find rest for your souls.  (Jer 6:16 (ASV))

The Septuagint reads,

And you shall find purification for your souls.  (Jer 6:16 (Brenton))

The Septuagint has the exact same words as what Matthew records, except instead of “rest,” the Septuagint says “purification.”  For this reason, Jesus and Matthew follow the Masoretic.

[Verses: 21.  Both: 8.  LXX: 6.  MT: 5.]

MATTHEW 12:7

Matthew 12:7 is a time when Jesus put the Pharisees in their place.  He told them,

If you had known what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the guiltless.  (Matt 12:7 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Hosea 6:6.

Matthew already quoted from Hosea 6:6 back in Matthew 9:13.  He is following the Septuagint.

[Verses: 22.  Both: 8.  LXX: 7.  MT: 5.]

MATTHEW 12:18-21

Matthew 12:18-21 is a direct prophecy from Isaiah.  It reads,

Behold, my servant whom I have chosen;

My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased:

I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.

He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets.

A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.  (Matt 12:18-21 (ASV))

This is a prophecy from Isaiah 42:1-4.  The Masoretic reads,

Behold, my servant, whom I uphold;

my chosen, in whom my soul delights:

I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.

A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.

…and the isles shall wait for his law.  (Is 42:1-4 (ASV))

Before moving on, let’s look at some differences.  Matthew says, “chosen” and “my beloved.”  The Masoretic says, “uphold” (or help) and “my chosen.”  Matthew says, “unto victory.”  The Masoretic says, “in truth.”  Matthew says, “In His name shall the Gentiles hope.”  The Masoretic says, “The isles shall wait for his law.”

The Septuagint reads,

Jacob is my servant, I will help him:

Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him;

I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor shall his voice be heard without.

A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgment to truth.

...and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.  (Is 42:1-4 (Brenton))

Let’s look at the differences between this and Matthew.  Matthew says, “Behold.”  The Septuagint says, “Jacob.”  Matthew says, “chosen” and “my beloved.”  The Septuagint says, “help” and “Israel is my chosen.”  (The Masoretic and Septuagint agree in “help” and “uphold.”)  Matthew says, “streets.”  The Septuagint says, “without,” meaning outside.  Matthew says, “unto victory.”  The Septuagint says, “to truth.”  (Which the Masoretic does also.)  Though Brenton’s translation says “Gentiles trust,” it is the exact same Greek word [elpizo] used in Matthew; Brenton should have translated it as “Gentiles hope.”

We sure have looked at a lot of differences here.  We are looking at a total of 4 verses.  When looking at the first 3 verses, it seems that the Matthew follows the Masoretic.  This is seen in the Septuagint’s “Jacob,” “Israel,” and “without/outside.”  And there are those places where the Masoretic and Septuagint disagree with Matthew.  These are: “uphold and help verses chosen,” “chosen verses beloved,” and “truth verses victory.”  In the first three verses, the Masoretic has more in-line with Matthew than the Septuagint.

By far, the most significant difference is the fourth verse.  Matthew and the Septuagint perfectly agree letter-for-letter (except where Matthew says “in” and the Septuagint says “upon”).  So regarding the fourth verse of this passage, the Masoretic doesn’t even come close.  Matthew certainly follows the Septuagint regarding the Gentiles hoping in Christ’s name.

Because of everything we have analyzed, we need to split this passage into two quotations, one for the first three verses and one for the fourth verse.  Matthew follows the Masoretic for the first part and the Septuagint for the second part.

[Verses: 24.  Both: 8.  LXX: 8.  MT: 6.]

CREDITS

That is enough for now.  But we will continue looking at New Testament quotations from the Old Testament next year.

Blessings and so forth.

Update - February 2019

There will be a new Septuagint video posted on Septuagint Day, which is Friday (Feb 8).  We will continue looking through Matthew in order to determine which verses more favor the Masoretic or the Septuagint.

Blessings and so forth!