Comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Using Matthew 1-3 (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g898idlzzXw

Comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Using Matthew 1-3

Post-Apostolic Church

REVIEWING THE PROBLEM WITH THE SEPTUAGINT

Welcome to this continuing series on the Septuagint.  Before going through the New Testament and comparing Old Testament quotations to the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint, there is one important thing to address.  In the third video about the Notable Differences between the Masoretic and the Septuagint, we looked at the only known problem with the Septuagint: that the genealogy of Genesis 5 places Methuselah’s death 14 years after the Flood.  After sharing that video, I had two viewers point out something important of which I was unaware.

In the first video, we talked about the three families of manuscripts: the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan.  Remember that within each family, there are manuscripts that are different.  It turns out that one of the differences in the Septuagint family of manuscripts is found in Gen 5:25.  The Septuagint found at the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) says that Methuselah was 167 years old when he fathered Lamech, the father of Noah.  This places the Flood 2242 years after Adam.  The Septuagint from the Vatican is used in most translations of the Septuagint.  And this is how it was explained in that video.  However, the Septuagint found at the Alexandria (Codex Alexandrinus) says that Methuselah was 187 when he fathered Lamech.  This pushes Lamech’s birth, Noah’s birth, and the year of the Flood back 20 years.  And so it places the Flood at 2262 years after Adam.

So according to the Alexandrian Septuagint, Methusaleh died 6 years before the Flood and not 14 years after the Flood as the Vatican Septuagint states.  And so, the only problem with the Septuagint is not even a problem at all for the Alexandrian Septuagint!  In the end, there are no known problems with the Greek Septuagint while the known problems with the Masoretic Old Testament still remain.  To review what those are, feel free to watch that portion of the third video in this series.

INTRO

Now that we have cleared up this important aspect of the Septuagint, 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.

For the New Testament readings and the Hebrew Masoretic readings, I will use the American Standard Version which is a very accurate translation of both.  For the Greek Septuagint readings, I will use Brenton’s Translation which is a very accurate translation of the Septuagint.  And since these translations were published less than sixty years apart (between 1901 and 1844, respectively), their readings should be similar.

As we go through each passage, we will keep a running count of the family of manuscripts and number of verses which the New Testament writers followed.

MATTHEW 1:23

Matthew 1:23 is about the prophecy that predicts Christ’s birth.  It reads,

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.  (Matt 1:23 (ASV))

This verse was already discussed in the previous video.  Click here for information about it.  As we saw, Matthew is following the Septuagint’s reading of Isaiah 7:14.

[Verses: 1.  LXX: 1.  MT: 0.]

MATTHEW 2:6

Matthew 2:6 is about what the chief priests and scribes told Herod when he asked them where the Christ would be born.  It reads,

And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of Judah: for out of you shall come forth a governor, who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.  (Matt 2:6 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Micah 5:2.  The Masoretic reads,

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which is little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall one come unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.  (Mic 5:2 (ASV))

The Masoretic mentions “Ephrathah” instead of “the land of Judah.”  (It is not exactly known what Ephrathah is, but while Bethlehem was the geographical name, Ephrathah was probably the ethnic name* for the people of the Bethlehem region.)  And the last half of the verse is very different.  Matthew does not follow the Masoretic.

[* See Ruth 1:2, 1Sam 17:12]

The Septuagint reads,

And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, are few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah; yet out of you shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel.  (Mic 5:2 (Brenton))

Amazingly, the Septuagint’s reading is just like the Masoretic’s reading except it says “few in number” when the Masoretic says “little.”

Matthew is indeed using Micah 5:2, but his reading is not really following the Masoretic or the Septuagint!  Just as there are differences between English translations today, there were differences between manuscripts back then.  It is possible that Matthew is using a manuscript with the genuine reading but which has since been lost.  Neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic will be counted on this verse.

[Verses: 2.  LXX: 1.  MT: 0.]

MATTHEW 2:15

Matthew 2:15 is about when Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus to escape Herod. It reads,

Out of Egypt did I call My Son.  (Matt 2:15 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Hosea 11:1.  The Masoretic reads,

I called my son out of Egypt.  (Hos 11:1 (ASV))

The Masoretic reads the same though the order is different.  The Septuagint reads,

Out of Egypt have I called his children.  (Hos 11:1 (Brenton))

The Septuagint says “his” instead of “my” and “children” instead of “son.”  So while Matthew follows the Septuagint’s order, he follows the Masoretic’s words.  Of the manuscript families we have today, it is too hard to tell which one Matthew is following.  Like in the previous quotation, Matthew might be using an ancient manuscript that has since been lost, but more likely, he is simply and purposefully switching the Masoretic’s order of Hosea 11:1.  Let’s say that Matthew is following the Masoretic.

[Verses: 3.  LXX: 1.  MT: 1.]

MATTHEW 2:18

Matthew 2:18 is about the mothers whose children were killed by Herod.  It reads,

A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she would not be comforted, because they are not.  (Matt 2:18 (ASV))

This brings up another difference in New Testament manuscripts.  The Alexandrian family of manuscripts, which the American Standard Version and most modern translations use, lists two kinds of sadness.  The Byzantine family, which include translations such as the New King James, include a third word here, “lamentation.”  This difference in New Testament manuscripts probably exists because of the difference in Old Testament manuscripts, which we are about to see.

This quotation is from Jeremiah 31:15.  The Masoretic reads,

A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for them, because they are no more.  (Jer 31:15 (ASV))

The Masoretic lists two kinds of sadness which agrees with the Alexandrian family of New Testament manuscripts but disagrees with the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

Because the Septuagint has a different order of the chapters in Jeremiah, this quotation is from chapter 38 verse 15.  It reads,

A voice was heard in Ramah, of lamentation, and of weeping, and wailing; Rachel would not cease weeping for her children, because they are not.  (Jer 38:15 (Brenton))

The Septuagint’s three kinds of sadness are a bit different.  It agrees with the Byzantine family of New Testament manuscripts but disagrees with the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.  Also, it does not speak about refusing comfort, but instead that Rachel just won’t stop weeping.  Matthew’s quotation is mostly identical to the Septuagint.  Though Matthew does not quote either precisely, it seems that he more closely follows the Masoretic.

[Verses: 4.  LXX: 1.  MT: 2.]

MATTHEW 2:23

Matthew 2:23 is about how Joseph settled in Nazareth which became Jesus’ hometown.  It reads,

He should be called a Nazarene.  (Matt 2:23 (ASV))

Incredibly, the Old Testament passage that Matthew is quoting is completely unknown!  Jerome wrote that he believed Matthew was using Isaiah 11:1.  There, the Hebrew word is netser which is translated “branch” or “shoot,” as in,

A shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a BRANCH out of his roots shall bear fruit.  (Is 11:1 (ASV))

Jerome was confident that this word should be rendered “Nazarene.”

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LVII.html, end of paragraph 7)

Sadly, since Matthew’s quotation cannot be found in today’s Masoretic or in today’s Septuagint, I will say that he follows neither.  Maybe Matthew was using Isaiah 11:1, maybe he used some other Old Testament passage that has since been lost, or maybe Matthew is not trying to quote the Old Testament but is showing the truth about Jesus’ hometown while poking fun at his contemporary, so-called “prophets” who were giving Nazareth a bad reputation in that day.  (See John 1:45-46.)

[Verses: 5.  LXX: 1.  MT: 2.]

HOW DO WE STAND SO FAR?

Thus far, we have looked at the first two chapters of Matthew.  Matthew 2:6 didn’t follow either manuscript family, and Matthew 2:23 isn’t found in any Old Testament.  Right now we have one verse that follows the Septuagint, two verses that follow the Masoretic, and two verses that didn’t follow either.  Things aren’t looking so well, but from here on, we will start to see a general pattern in how the New Testament writers will favor the Septuagint over the Masoretic.

MATTHEW 3:3

Matthew 3:3 is about John the Baptist.  It reads,

The voice of one crying in the wilderness: make you ready the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.  (Matt 3:3 (ASV))

This is a quotation from Isaiah 40:3.  The Masoretic reads,

The voice of one that cries: Prepare you in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for our God.  (Is 40:3 (ASV))

The Masoretic says that the wilderness is where the way needs to be prepared while Matthew says that the wilderness is where the person will be crying out.  The Masoretic speaks about building a highway in the desert while Matthew says people need to make straight ways for God’s paths.

The Septuagint reads,

The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare you the way of the Lord; make straight the paths of our God.  (Is 40:3 (Brenton))

The only difference here is that the Septuagint says “of our God” while Matthew says “Him.”  Matthew more closely follows the Septuagint’s reading.

[Verses: 6.  LXX: 2.  MT: 2.]

CONCLUSION

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

Blessings and so forth.

Update - Feb 2017

Hiatus
I mentioned that I wanted to take some time off due to the holidays and such.  I didn't plan to release a video in January, but I have been working on scripts.  I have scripts ready for the next four videos!  Additionally, I am trying to make my videos less than 10 minutes.  This way, they won't require viewers to devote so much time in one sitting.  It also should allow for videos to come more often since they are smaller.

Septuagint Series
My next video will be released on Feb 8, which is Septuagint Day.  I will continue my series on the Septuagint by releasing a video each year on that day.

Divinity Series
Mid or late February will see this series continue.  I'm happy how the scripts are turning out for this and look forward to sharing these videos on God the Father.  Once I start posting them, they should come quick (in contrast to my rate of releasing videos in the past, haha).

Blessings and so forth!

Update - Jan 2017

Happy New Year!
 Are you looking forward to a new year filled with plans and goals?  If so, I hope that you will be very productive in whatever you are planning!

I am excited about this new year.  Having finally started posting videos on what the early Christians believed, I want to get rolling more of those out.  As I said in my latest video, the next videos will focus on God the Father.

Divinity Series
In my last update, I shared how I received some interesting comments on my video on Monarchianism (one God in one Person).  Then I released the third video on the Divinity with the hopes that, through some quotes from the early Christians and mainly the Scriptures, I could clearly show that the Father and the Son are different Persons of God.  I was very happy with how the video came out.  I hoped some people would comment and challenge me on something I said.  To my surprise and pleasure, no one had any disagreements!  It goes to show that the Scriptures are powerful enough to reveal to us the true nature of God.  :)

I cannot make any promises about when the next video will be posted, but I would like to get it out before the end of January.

Blessings and so forth.

Early Christianity on: The Persons of God (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxqQWgi5CZc

Early Christianity on the Persons of God

Post-Apostolic Church

INTRO

This is the third video in a series on what the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote about the Divinity.  We have looked at what the early Christians wrote about the nature of God and how they rejected the doctrine of Monarchianism, that is, the belief in one God in one Person, let’s look at what the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote about the Persons of God.

THE PERSONS OF GOD - PLURALITY

The early Christians made a good point by showing the times when God spoke about Himself in the plural.  Tertullian wrote,

How is it possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely one and singular to speak in plural phrases, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness"?*  …He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking in the plural, if he is one only and singular.  Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because they also do not acknowledge the Son...?  No, it was because He had already His Son close at His side.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 606.)

*Gen 1:26.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xii.html)

Hippolytus noticed this in the words of Jesus which appear to be hiding in plain sight, writing,

Again, if he [Noetus] alleges His [Jesus'] own word when He said, "I and the Father are one,"* let him recognize the fact and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one”, but “are one."  For the word "are" is not said of one person, but it refers to two Persons, and one Power.  (Hippolytus.  AD 205.  ANF, vol 5, page 226.)

* John 10:30.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.iv.html,7)

Like Hippolytus, Tertullian also commented on John 10:30, writing,

"Two" are still the subject in the masculine gender.  He accordingly says, "unum," [that is Latin for "one,"] a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, and affection on the Father's part, who loves the Son, and [there is] the submission of the Son who obeys the Father's will.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 618.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxii.html)

Novatian also commented on John 10:30,

Let the heretics understand that He did not say "one" person.  For one [is] placed in the neuter, [and it is] close to the social harmony, not the personal unity....  For He would not have added "We are," if He had had it in mind that He, the only and sole Father, had become the Son....  Writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] said, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.  Therefore, neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God who gives the increase.  Now he that plants and he that waters are one."*  And who does not perceive that Apollos is one person and Paul another, and that Apollos and Paul are not one and the same person...?  Apollos indeed is one, and Paul another, so far as respects the distinction of persons, yet as far as respects their agreement both are “one.”  (Novatian.  AD 235.  ANF, vol 5, page 637-638.)

* 1Cor 3:6-8.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iii.xxviii.html)

THE PERSONS OF GOD - AUTHORITY

Tertullian noticed that the Father and the Son have different positions, that is, they are different in their authority.  Though the Son and the Father are equal in nature—being fully divine--, the Son is under the Father’s authority.  About this, Tertullian wrote,

"When He [the Son] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.  For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet...."*  "However, when all things will be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did put all things under Him,) then will the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all...."**  Now, from this one passage of the letter of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up--and in like manner, He who subjected all things, and He to whom they were subjected--must necessarily be different Beings.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 600.)

* 1Cor 15:24-25.

** 1Cor 15:27-28.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iv.html)

The Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, just as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and again, He who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 604.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.ix.html)

Tertullian said that the Father is greater than the Son.  Do the Scriptures teach this?  We will revisit this later.

Tertullian reminds us that though the Son is a different Person, He is not separate from the Divinity.

If He [the Son] is also God, according to John who said, "The Word was God,"* then you have two Beings: One that commands that the thing be made and the Other that creates.  However, in what sense you should understand Him to be another [Person], I have already explained [it to be] on the ground of personality, not of substance.  [They are different] in the way of distinction, not of division.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 607.)

* John 1:1

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xii.html)

THE PERSONS OF GOD – FLESH AND BLOOD

Christians know and believe that the Son took on flesh and was born a human.  Could the same be said of the Father?  The early Christians said, “No!”  Tertullian wrote how the Son was a different Person while also remaining in the Divinity.

That which has come forth out of God [the Father] is at once God [deity] and the Son of God, and the two [Father and Son] are one....  He [the Son] is made a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature.  And He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth [from the Father].  (Tertullian.  AD 197.  ANF, vol 3, page 34.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html)

We will revisit this difference between the Son becoming flesh and the Father not becoming flesh.

SCRIPTURES: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS

Now that we have looked at what the early Christians believed, let's look at the Scriptures to see if what they believed was true.  The Scriptures have a lot to say about the Persons of God.

SCRIPTURES: PLURALITY

Tertullian and Hippolytus pointed out how God sometimes referred to Himself in the plural.  What do the Scriptures say about the Divinity being plural?  From the first and third chapters of the Bible, it reads,

God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...."  The Lord God said, "Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take the from the tree of life, eat, and live forever."  (Gen 1:26, 3:22)

It is no accident that from creation, God shows us that there is more than one Person in the Divinity present.  And this is not the only place in Genesis.  When the tower of Babel was being built,

The Lord said, "If they have begun to do this as one people all having the same language, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.  Come, let Us go down there and confuse their language."  (Gen 11:7)

Tertullian quoted John 10:30 and said that the Father and the Son being one is not numerical but a statement of unity.  This is also echoed seven chapters later where Jesus referred to Himself and the Father in the plural.  Praying to His Father, Jesus said,

May they all be one, as you, Father, are in Me and I am in You.  May they also be one in Us, so the world may believe You sent Me.  (John 17:21)

The following verse was an important one to the early Christians about the Persons of God.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  (Matt 28:19)

In this verse, we see both the unity and oneness of God while also seeing the three Persons of God.  We see each of the names of the three Persons.  At the same time, we see one, singular “name” of God.  Jesus did not say, “names.”  Tertullian added,

[Jesus] commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into a uni-personal God.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 623.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxvi.html)

SCRIPTURES: AUTHORITY

Earlier, Tertullian mentioned that the Father is greater than the Son.  At first thought, that may sound heretical to some people.  But is this true?  What do the Scriptures say?  In John's gospel, Jesus said to His disciples,

The Father is greater than I.  (John 14:28)

Jesus plainly confirms that the Father is greater than He.  If the Father and the Son were the same Person, how could He be greater than Himself?  No, the Father’s authority over the Son demands that they be two Persons.

Now does this mean that Jesus is a lesser God than the Father?  Not at all!  So how is the Father greater than the Son?  The Father is greater in authority because the Son receives His authority from the Father.

Jesus replied, "I assure you: The Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing.  For whatever the Father does, the Son also does these things in the same way….  I have not spoken on My own, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a command as to what I should say and what I should speak."  (John 5:19, 12:49)

Notice that Jesus does not recognize His own authority, but recognizes where His authority comes from: it was given to Him by the Father.

The following Scriptures point out how different the authority of the Son is to the Father.  Paul wrote,

I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God [the Father] is the head of Christ.  (1Cor 11:3)

Then comes the end, when He [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power….  For God has put everything under His feet.  But when it says “everything” is put under Him, it is obvious that He [the Father] who puts everything under Him is the exception.  (1Cor 15:14,27-28)

Being under the authority of His Father and not greater than His Father, the Son learned obedience because He was the Son of God and Son of Man,

He [Jesus] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross.  (Php 2:8)

Though He was God’s Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered.  (Heb 5:8)

When James and John asked Jesus to put them on His right and left in His kingdom, Jesus said,

To sit at My right and left is not Mine to give; instead, it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.  (Matt 20:23)

Jesus says that He does not have this particular authority, but this authority is only with the Father.

Jesus also said about His Second Coming,

Now concerning that day or hour no one knows--neither the angels in heaven nor the Son--except the Father.  (Mark 13:32)

Jesus told His disciples that there is at least one thing He does not know; only the Father knows this.  If the Divinity is made up of one Person, how can that person simultaneously know and not know when He will return?

Very interestingly, the Father is referred to as “the God” of the Son, which is quite amazing.  For example, the Father said through a psalm to the Son,

Your throne, God [the Son], is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.  You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; this is why God [the Father], Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy rather than your companions [the angels].  (Heb 1:8-9)

The Father calls the Son God while also saying that He is His God.  Jesus Himself acknowledged this in two other places saying,

I have not yet ascended to the Father.  But go to My brothers and tell them that I am ascending to My Father and your Father—to My God and your God.  (John 20:17)

I will make him [the victor] a pillar in the sanctuary of My God, and he will never go out again.  I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God—the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God—and My new name.  (Rev 3:12)

FLESH AND BLOOD

Lastly, Tertullian said that when Jesus came to earth, He was made to exist in a secondary position under the Father.  Is that true?  What do the Scriptures say?  This secondary position happened when Jesus was born as a human.  The author of Hebrews wrote,

We do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time….  Now since the children have flesh and blood in common, Jesus also shared in these, so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death—that is, the Devil… and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.  (Heb 2:9a, 14, 17)

So the Son became flesh and blood, a human.  The Father did not and remained above the angels.  That is certainly a difference between the Father and the Son.  In the last video about Monarchianism, there were a few quotes about how the early Christians considered it blasphemy to say that the Father Himself would be born of a virgin and die on the cross.  This was one of their popular arguments against the belief that God is one Person.

Even after His resurrection, Jesus said,

Look at My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself!  Touch Me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.  (Luke 24:39)

Therefore, we see that Jesus had flesh both before and after His resurrection.

But even at this point, those who believe that the Father and the Son are the same Person might be able to explain how that works.  However, the fact that Jesus is God and became human is much more significant than what many understand.  First, let it be known that Jesus became flesh and blood, a human, lived among us, and people saw Him and His glory.  The apostle John wrote,

The Word became flesh and took up residence among us.  We observed His glory, the glory as the only begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.  (John 1:14)

Yet just three verses later, John write,

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)

Now if the Father and the Son are the same person, then how can no one see God while plenty of people saw the Son?  Paul also makes this clear and takes it a step further, writing about the Father,

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.  (1Tim 6:16)

Paul is clear: when it comes to seeing the Father, no one has seen Him and no one can see Him.  On the other hand, about the Son,

The Word became flesh and took up residence among us.  We observed His glory, the glory as the only begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.  (John 1:14)

In summary, the apostles wrote that God has not been seen nor can He be seen. They also said that the Word became flesh, lived among men, and that people saw His glory.  How can we reconcile what the apostles wrote?  How can we explain the nature of the Divinity when the Father has never been seen and no one can see Him—while the Son became flesh and His glory was seen?  If God is only one Person, then John and Paul contradicted themselves.  But if the Father and the Son are different Persons, then this is the best explanation of the nature of the Divinity and fits perfectly with what John and Paul wrote.  And this explanation that the Divinity is multiple Persons is nothing new; nor did the early Christians invent this.  They explained it just as they learned it from the apostles themselves or from those who knew the apostles.

About the invisibility of God the Father, we will go into more about what the early Christians said about this in a future video.

CONCLUSION

This has been a detailed look at some of the things that the early Christians said about the Persons of God.  In the next videos in this series on the Divinity, we will begin looking specifically at their writings about God the Father.

Blessings and so forth.

Update - Dec 2016

Divinity Series
I'm happy to say that I released two videos in the last 3 weeks!  Even more exciting is that I plan to release a third video tomorrow!

We're finally getting the videos which is what this channel is all about: what the early Christians believed.  This first series is on the Divinity.  The first three videos will be about the nature of God and the Persons of God.

After that, I have planned for 11 videos on God the Father.  I will probably wait until mid-January to start releasing them.  Because holidays and all.  You know what I mean.

Responses to It
I've had some positive responses to my first two videos on the Divinity.  More than I expected, it brought out a number of critics.  Of course, a couple folks who believe in Monarchianism commented, and I'm very thankful for their willingness to dialogue and discuss this subject.  I expect that my third video will bring a lot of comments.  I want people to comment!

To my surprise, there was one Christian commentor who doesn't believe that Jesus was divine/deity.  I've personally never met anyone who believes this way who claims to be a Christian.  My first thought is: how can someone be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is divine/deity?  It won't be too many months before I release a video on the divinity/deity of Jesus Christ.  I'm excited about this because it is one of the BIGGEST subjects that the early Christians wrote about.  I will probably split this subject into multiple videos.

Prayers Requested
As always, please pray for this ministry and that I find the time and motivation to continue to release videos sooner rather than later.  There is so much information that I will be busy for decades to come.  I don't want to put any of this off.

Blessings and so forth.

Early Christianity on: Monarchianism (Full Script)

Too lazy to read?  Watch the video!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBGDlasu08o

Early Christianity on Monarchianism

Post-Apostolic Church

INTRO

This is the second video in a series on what the Pre-Nicene Christians wrote about the Divinity.

The early Christians wrote a lot about the three Persons of the Divinity.  One of the reasons they wrote so much is because of a doctrine that began to arise as early as the second century.  This belief says that there is one God in one Person and is called Monarchianism.  The Pre-Nicene Church wrote against this belief extensively.  So before we can discuss what early Christianity said about the Persons of God, let us first analyze Monarchianism and see what it claims the nature of God is like.

MONARCHIANISM

Justin Martyr was the first to write about this belief and he immediately opposed it.

They who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.  (Justin Martyr.  AD 160.  ANF, vol 1, page 184.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxiii.html)

Hippolytus wrote about an event when the church dealt with a person who was a popular Monarchianist.

Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna and who lived not very long ago.  This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit.  He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, suffered, and died....  From his other actions, the proof is already given to us that he did not speak with a pure spirit.  For he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is cast out from the holy inheritance.  He alleged that he was himself Moses and that Aaron was his brother.  When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him....  After examining him, they expelled him from the Church.  (Hippolytus.  AD 205, vol 5, page 223.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.iv.html, 1)

It is very likely that Praxeas was one of Noetus' students.  Against him, Tertullian wrote,

[Praxeas] says that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ....  He was the first to import this kind of heretical perversion into Rome from Asia.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 597.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.i.html)

This heresy supposes itself to possess the pure truth in thinking that one cannot believe in one and only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very same Person.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 598.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.ii.html)

The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity....  They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they give themselves above all the credit of being worshippers of the one God.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 599.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html)

Why would someone believe in Monarchianism?  Hippolytus wrote,

They seek to exhibit the foundation of their dogma by citing the word in the law, "I am the God of your fathers.  You shall have no other gods besides Me,"* and again in another passage, "I am the first and the last.  Beside me there is none other."**  Thus they say they prove that God is one....  But the case does not stand like this.  For the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner.  (Hippolytus.  AD 205.  ANF, vol 5, page 223-224.)

* Ex 3:6, 20:3.

** Is 44:6.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.iv.html, 2)

Here are a few Pre-Nicene Christian writings directly opposing Monarchianism.  Tertullian wrote,

Monarchians... say He Himself made Himself a Son to Himself....  A father needs to have a son in order to be a father.  Likewise, for a son to be a son, he must have a father.  However, it is one thing to have and another thing to be.  For instance, in order to be a husband, I must have a wife.  I can never be my own wife.  In like manner, in order to be a father, I have a son, for I never can be a son to myself.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 604.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.x.html)

Origen wrote about the Monarchians,

[They say] that the Son did not differ in number from the Father, but that both were one, not only in point of substance but in point of subject [that is, Person], and that the Father and the Son were said to be different in some of their aspects but not in their Person.  Against such views we must in the first place present the leading texts which prove the Son to be another [Person] than the Father, and that the Son must of necessity be the son of a Father, and the Father, the father of a Son.  (Origen.  AD 228.  ANF, vol 9, page 402.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.vi.xxi.html)

Novatian wrote,

For thus they say, "If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God," then say they, "If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father." In this they are proved to be in error, not knowing Christ, but following the sound of a name.  (Novatian.  AD 235.  ANF, vol 5, page 636.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iii.xxvii.html)

How serious did the Pre-Nicene Christians view Monarchianism?  They viewed it as blasphemy.  Tertullian wrote,

You blaspheme because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross.  For "cursed are they which are hanged on a tree,"*  After the law, this is a curse which is compatible to the Son (only as "Christ has been made a curse for us,"** but certainly not the Father).  However, since you convert Christ into the Father, you are chargeable with blasphemy against the Father.  (Tertullian.  AD 213.  ANF, vol 3, page 626.)

* Deut 21:23.

** Gal 3:13.

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxix.html)

Dionysius of Rome wrote,

Sabellius... blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father, and vice versa.  (Dionysius of Rome.  AD 265.  ANF, vol 7, page 365.)

(www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vii.ii.html, 1)

CONCLUSION

This has been a brief look at Monarchisnism and how the Pre-Nicene Christians rejected the teaching that there is one God in one Person.  In the next video, we will look at their detailed evidence regarding the Persons of God.

Blessings and so forth.