Extra Notes on Church History
Josiahs Scott,
Josiahs@trueconnection.org,
www.TrueConnection.org
Recompiled: 11/9/09 A-C; revised: 12/5/09 – 12/31/09; 1/16/10;
3/17/10; (9/10/10); 9/14/10; 12/1/10; 2/1/11; 3/16/12-3/17/12; 6/18/12; 9/3/12;
10/19/12
This work is an appendix resource for
the book, Divorce and Remarriage Repentance Revolution. It is time to call
the church to repent of adulteress remarriage!
Contents
Some Taught No Remarriage After Death?. 4
Athenagoras, the One Who Preceded The Montanists. 4
Tertullian, the Misquoted Heretic. 9
Did the Early Church Teach Betrothal?. 17
What We Can See From these Passages22
But there is Betrothal Evidence in the Early Church. 26
Justin Martyr and Athenagoras26
Further Reformation Details. 30
The Authenticity of “the Woman Taken in
Adultery”30
I have the difficult task here of clarifying a few smaller points and details about church history that have been misunderstood, misquoted, and poorly referenced in some relation to the primary teaching about marriage. This is mostly “difficult,” because it mostly involves correcting bad people, all the way from early church history down to our own day. That being said, we also have the very encouraging content from Irenaeus below that is very insightful.
I hope that this information will correct misinformation that is both historically incorrect as well as spiritually polluted, so that those who read may guard in detail against bad misunderstandings of facts, especially when they yield impurities of spirit.
Origen
As a Universalist heretic, Origen said,
“We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end.”
(Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chap. VI, Point 1, 2nd paragraph; Vol. 4, Ante-Nicene Fathers, in e-Sword at 4.04.06)
Or as others render it:
“We think that the goodness of God, through the mediation of Christ, will bring all creatures to one and the same end.”
[www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm]
It is also said in one preface to Origen’s works:
It is in his treatise Περὶ Ἀρχῶν,
or, as it is commonly known under the Latin title, De Principiis, that Origen most
fully develops his system, and brings out his peculiar principles. None of his
works exposed him to so much animadversion in the
ancient Church as this. On it chiefly was based the charge of heresy which some
vehemently pressed against him, - a charge from which even his firmest friends
felt it no easy matter absolutely to defend him. The points on which it was
held that he had plainly departed from the orthodox faith, were the four
following: First, That the
souls of men had existed in a previous state, and that their imprisonment
in material bodies was a punishment for sins which they had then committed. Second, That the
human soul of Christ had also previously existed, and been united to the Divine
nature before that incarnation of the Son of God which is related in the
Gospels. Third, That our
material bodies shall be transformed into absolutely ethereal ones at the
resurrection; and Fourth, That
all men, and even devils, shall be finally restored through the mediation of
Christ. His principles of interpreting Scripture are also brought out in
this treatise; and while not a little ingenuity is displayed in illustrating
and maintaining them, the serious errors into which they might too easily lead
will be at once perceived by the reader.
(A Preface to the works of Origen,
as found in the earlier volume
of the Edinburgh series, and as reprinted within the Introductory
Notice to Origen in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers; in e-Sword at
4.04.01; emphasis mine)
Origen was yet further a heretic in so many places that it is impossible for
me to number. One such example can be
seen even in his commentaries on Matthew (book 14, # 16) where he, in a sort of
looseness and lawlessness in commentating, contradicts some of the things that
Jesus believed about the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Many of his thoughts
are sprinkled with this type of defilement.
It is amazing to me that any church leader today would quote him for
anything, but still, some do at times.
In the first passage
containing the above quote from Origen, he presents his Universalist heresy,
not so much as facts that everyone agrees with, but rather as suggested
considerations that he reinforces with his usual looseness and lawless
reasoning. However, concerning his
commentaries on Matthew, in the midst of all of his heresies, he knew that the
marriage covenant was permanent. In the very same work where he said very bad
and untrue things, he at least confesses the permanence of one flesh:
The Saviour then commanded, “What
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” but man wishes
to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and
doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in
their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to
commit fornication, but “to marry”...
(Origen,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XIV, #16; Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 9, in e-Sword at
9.13.29)
Make sure you have read, “From Origen to Augustine - The Few Who Wavered”
in the “The Historical Church Teaching”.
Some
Taught No Remarriage After Death?
Athenagoras, the One Who Preceded The
Montanists
Some have boldly written:
Remarriage after separation was
considered punishable adultery or bigamy—sometimes more so for women than men.
Even remarriage after the death of one's spouse was viewed by the church
fathers and councils with suspicion, as "disguised adultery," in
the words of Athenagoras.
(Divorce and Remarriage from
Augustine to Zwingli, Christianity Today;
emphasis mine)
Please keep in
mind that this is an essentially liberal source that sets out to cast scorn on
those who embrace anything hard-core concerning this issue, and when they reference the “church
fathers” as not permitting remarriage after the death of a spouse, this is not
quite accurate. Actually, this clearly unbiblical belief was essentially a
major element of a deeply notorious “spiritual” movement that started in the
later part of the second century called Montanism
(see below), and not the actual “Church Fathers.” Before their time, the
earliest representative that I know of to teach this is the above quoted Athenagoras.
The fact that Athenagoras is quoted as a
representative sample of the early church and not an authoritative figure is
significantly disturbing for a number of reasons. We may first notice that Athenagoras was not widely circulated
among the Church, as evidenced by the following facts:
“It is one of the most singular facts in early
ecclesiastical history, that the name of Athenagoras is scarcely ever
mentioned. Only two references to him and his writings have been
discovered. One of these occurs in the work of Methodius, On the Resurrection of the Body, as
preserved by Epiphanius (Haer., lxiv.) and Photius (Biblioth.,
ccxxxiv.). The other notice of him is found in the writings3 of
Philip of Side, in Pamphylia, who flourished in the
early part of the fifth century*. It is very remarkable that Eusebius
should have been altogether silent regarding him; and that writings, so elegant and powerful as are those which still exist under
his name, should have been allowed in early times to sink into almost entire
oblivion.”
(The “original Introductory Notice” to the
“Writings of Athenagoras,”; Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers; in
e-Sword at 2.04.01; emphasis mine)
[* “early part of the fifth century” – That is, after the corruption of
Nicaea]
So we see that he is a strangely obscure historical figure, and though he may have been an early writer, he was not widely distributed. But much worse than this, his content is not full of integrity and pure truth as many other early writers of the Church, who were her valiant leaders and warriors for the fight of Truth.
Athenagoras was mixed up in a number of corruptions, such as the praise of pagan rulers, even for their victorious wars and pagan wisdom. Although he capitalized on the christian doctrine, Athenagoras spoke favorably of the pagan philosophy of such rulers, while he called himself, “Athenagoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian,” (see the beginning of, “A Plea for the Christians” with the reference being the same as below).
In light of these corruptions it is no wonder why he may state many plainly unbiblical beliefs. So citing Athenagoras as a representative for “the church fathers” is quite a stretch, since the real Church was considerably more Biblical than this.
Perhaps we can say that some of Athenagoras’ teachings laid the ground work which slightly justified this one point of unbiblical teaching for the Montanists that came to the surface as a movement not long after his time. I have considered this to be likely (to some degree or the other), and I thought it was interesting to see this somewhat echoed by the commentary to the Ante-Nicene Fathers:
“119 [There is perhaps a
touch of the rising Phrygian influence* in this passage…”
[*“Phrygian influence” – That is, the Montanists (see below for more)]
You may take note as to what statement this is in reference to by comparing the number here (119) with the quoted passage below.
This incorrect statement that Athenagoras makes permitting no remarriage after death is among a number of other very unbiblical statements that he and a few others make. I include the passage where these things are found below with the most notable parts underlined:
Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of
this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his
wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children.
For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not
sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of
our indulgence in appetite. Nay, you would find many among us, both men and
women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God.118 But if the remaining
in virginity and in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to God, while the
indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in those cases in
which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the deeds. For we bestow our
attention; not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of
actions, - that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content
with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery.119 “For whosoever
puts away his wife,” says He, “and marries another, commits adultery;” [NO EXCEPTION] (Mat_19:9) not
permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an
end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first
wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer,120 resisting the hand of
God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving
the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the
race.
(~177 AD, Writings of Athenagoras, Chap. XXXIII; Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene
Fathers; in e-Sword at
2.04.04)
This is one of many
examples where we can see that whenever anyone erred on marriage they nearly
always did so by extending the restrictions to
include things like death, not by lessening the
standard somehow to allow divorce and remarriage.
Montanism
Montanism was started by a man named Montanus, and was later led by two alleged prophetesses,
“Priscilla” and “Maximilla,” who referred to their
movement as The New Prophecy.
They were also called “Phrygiams,” or even “Cataphrygians,” by the Church. The movement was written
against by such authoritative Church overseers as Irenaeus,
(The third disciple from John the Apostle).
Among many other problems,
they denied the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel of John, and many other
serious elements of real Christianity.
Montanism had an established error which they did in
reference to 1Ti_3:2, 1Ti_3:12,
and 1Ti_5:9 about Deacons and widows being
“one-spouse” people:
…the church understood the verses
above to apply to any second marriage– including a remarriage after one’s
spouse had died. If a person had been remarried for any reason, that person was
disqualified from being ordained into the clergy or being enrolled as a widow.
The Montanists, however, went a
step farther, prohibiting even laypersons from remarrying after the
death of their spouses.
(Under “TWICE-MARRIED” from “A Dictionary of Early Christian
Beliefs,” p. 657, by David W. Bercot)
So we see that this second
step of forbidding marriage after death did not reflect the real Church during
their time, but primarily represented the Montanists.
Tertullian, the Misquoted Heretic
As far as influential Montanists, I think everyone
would agree that the early church leader named Tertullian was the most
eminent. But even before falling in with
the Montanists (after the death of Irenaeus), many of his character
flaws can be seen throughout his writings.
But Tertullian is somewhat important to this teaching because in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs Tertullian is somewhat quoted without the necessary amount of vital context so that to many people it has appeared as though he taught against the universal teaching of the permanency of the marriage covenant, when in fact, he fully supported it along with every other Church leader, except that he taught that Christian widows should not remarry.
I have mostly considered A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs to be generally helpful, but in this case a significant number of people that I have read and talked to have mistakenly taken the quote totally wrong, since it is without enough context to flag the quote and represent it distinctly to the uninformed reader. In fact, I myself thought that Tertullian allowed divorce and remarriage when I first read the quote like this, until I personally looked up the quote and read it in context for the first time. Only afterward did I look back and understand the train of thought that the quote is not talking about allowing divorce and remarriage.
This quote
is entered under the section on “Remarriage” with many of the quotes addressing
divorce and remarriage, while Tertullian is addressing widowhood and remarriage
with nothing marking a distinction clearly enough for many people to catch the
transition. Tertullian's quote appears as such in this dictionary:
“If you are bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed. If you have been
loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife. But even if you have taken a wife, you
have not sinned.” [1 Cor
7:27, 28]. He says that because to a man who had been loosed from a wife prior to his believing [in Christ], his
wife will not be counted as a “second wife.” Because she is
his first wife after his believing. Tertullian (c. 217, W), 4.68.
(A Dictionary of Early Christian
Beliefs, under “Remarriage,” p. 555)
The fact that I have known a significant number of people (both good and bad) that I have seen misunderstanding this entry suggests a problem. This quote is actually saying something totally different than many have understood and used it to say, and this has drawn a number of faulty conclusions. If we were going to use Tertullian, I would urge that we need to at least use a more full and contextual quote to let the reader know what he was talking about. But it is not so grievous if readers or writers make mistakes as much as it is that there are liberal heretics today that gleefully take advantage of them.
After much consideration, I suspected that this effect was not intentional at all on the part of the compiler of this dictionary, and so, especially in light of finally preparing to take my book to print for the first time, I finally wrote the editor David Bercot and asked him if they had any clarifying responses to these things, and I referred him to this very article you are reading right now. Mr. Bercot replied very honorably:
Dear Josiahs,
I have read and re-read the pages surrounding the quotation from Tertullian about remarriage, and I now see that he is talking about remarriage after the death of a spouse—not after divorce. Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I plan to post a note about this correction on the Scroll website.
To my knowledge, no one has ever contacted me before about that quotation (I had forgotten it was even in my Dictionary). As a result, I’ve never had the occasion to examine the quotation in more detail.
The piece you wrote about this quotation reveals something that I had hoped would not happen: people are using the quotations without going to the Ante-Nicene Fathers and reading the quotations in their context…
Again, thanks for bringing this matter to my attention…
(David
Bercot, Subject:
Tertullian quotation on remarriage, Sent:
Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:28 PM)
You can also see the other
very helpful things that he wrote me in this email about his dictionary in my Bibliography
under the title, A
Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. You should especially want to review
these things if you ever get to use his dictionary.
You can also read all of these emails in their complete form using the
shortcut: www.trueconnection.org/goto/Bercot
Most English readers understand 1Co_7:27-28 to be a reference to
divorce, but Tertullian explicitly understood it to be a reference to widowhood
(which is more possible to see when read in Greek). If you want to, you can
just read the underlined portions to get the main idea:
...the Psychics will have it the apostle approved, or else totally failed to think about, when he wrote: “The woman is bound for such length of time as her husband liveth; but if he shall have died, she is free; whom she will let her marry, only in the Lord.”... [Tertullian goes on to mention that Paul did not permit second marriages, and then says] ...that that one passage should have some explanation agreeable with the others, than that an apostle should seem to have taught (principles) mutually diverse. [ie. Paul did not contradict himself] ...of course, as he may have been found by the faith. “Thou hast been bound to a wife, seek not loosing; thou hast been loosed from a wife, seek not a wife.” “But if thou shalt have taken to (thyself) a wife, thou hast not sinned;” because to one who, before believing, had been “loosed from a wife,” she will not be counted a second wife who, subsequently to believing, is the first: for it is from (the time of our) believing that our life itself dates its origin. [If we stop the quote here, we might think Tertullian is speaking of divorce and remarriage. But Tertullian goes on to clarify what he means.] So, then, in the very same passage in which he definitely rules that “each one ought permanently to remain in that calling in which he shall be called;” adding, “A woman is bound so long as her husband liveth; but if he shall have fallen asleep, she is free: whom she shall wish let her marry, only in the Lord,” he hence also demonstrates that such a woman is to be understood as has withal herself been “found” (by the faith) “loosed from a husband,” similarly as the husband “loosed from a wife” - the “loosing” having taken place through death, of course, not through divorce; inasmuch as to the divorced he would grant no permission to marry, in the teeth of the primary precept. And so “a woman, if she shall have married, will not sin;” because he will not be reckoned a second husband who is, subsequently to her believing, the first, any more (than a wife thus taken will be counted a second wife). And so truly is this the case... for nothing is so much to be guarded as (the care) that no one be found self-contradictory.
Though it is clear here that Tertullian taught the exact same message on divorce and remarriage as every other early church leader did, (except for the Monastic view on forbidding lay-widows to remarry), some have taken this quote out of context to wrongly justify themselves in discounting the historical early Church teaching and to embrace divorce and remarriage. But if they will do so by a heretic named Tertullian, I wish that they would at least realize that he was talking about widows, not divorced people. And I wish that they would altogether except his point “for nothing is so much to be guarded as (the care) that no one be found self-contradictory,” since, just as Tertullian is saying not to do, they in effect say that Paul contradicted himself in first Corinthians seven by allowing remarriage after he clearly prohibited it, and then adding insult to injury, they turn around and try to falsely use Tertullian to support it.
But it is shocking to me that you can still
find people today that have the nerve (or ignorance?) to quote Tertullian as
though he is of some worthy character. Perhaps in some cases, this reveals
their desire to share his heresies. But they will almost never quote what he
taught about divorce and remarriage, except that they quote it out of context!
Irenaeus
Quotes
Taken from the books Entitled, “Against Heresies”
“For
our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver [that is, that washing
water of baptism] which leads to incorruption; but our souls, by means of the
Spirit. Wherefore
both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God, our Lord
compassionating that erring Samaritan woman85 - who did not remain with one husband, but committed fornication
by [contracting] many marriages - by pointing out, and promising to her
living water…”
(Irenaeus Against Heresies., Book III, Ch XVII, Point 2; Vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers,
in e-Sword at 1.08.16)
…But when they turned themselves to
make a calf, and had gone back in their minds to Egypt, desiring to be slaves
instead of free-men, they were placed for the future in a state of servitude
suited to their wish, - [a slavery] which did not indeed cut them off from God,
but subjected them to the yoke of bondage; as Ezekiel the prophet,
when stating the reasons for the giving of such a law, declares: “And
their eyes were after the desire of their heart; and I gave them statutes that
were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live.” (Eze_20:24) Luke also has recorded that Stephen,
who was the first elected into the diaconate by the apostles,39 and who was the first slain for the
testimony of Christ, spoke regarding Moses as follows: “This man did indeed
receive the commandments of the living God to give to us, whom your fathers
would not obey, but thrust [Him from them], and in their hearts turned back
again into Egypt…
…pointing out plainly, that the law being such, was not given to them
by another God, but that, adapted to their condition of servitude… Wherefore
also He says to Moses in Exodus: “I will send forth My
angel before thee; for I will not go up with thee, because thou art a
stiff-necked people.” (Exo_33:2,
Exo_33:3)…
And not only so, but the Lord also showed that certain
precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on account of their hardness [of
heart], and because of their unwillingness to be obedient, when, on their
saying to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement,
and to send away a wife?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your
hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the beginning it was not so;”
(Mat_19:7, Mat_19:8) thus
exculpating Moses as a faithful servant, but acknowledging one God, who
from the beginning made male and female, and reproving them as hard-hearted and
disobedient. And therefore it was that they received from Moses this law of
divorcement, adapted to their hard nature.
(Irenaeus
Against Heresies., Book IV, Ch XV, Points 1 and 2; Vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers,
in e-Sword at 1.08.19)
Clarifications:
Although Jesus said that divorce and remarriage was “Adultery,”
by saying that the “Samaritan
woman… committed fornication,” Irenaeus is still technically correct since (especially
in Greek) Jesus shows us that none of the men that the Samaritan woman had been with were actually her husband (Joh_4:17-18).
From an
exclusive perspective: On the Samaritan woman’s end of the relationships her lifestyle would have
been one of “fornication,” but on the men’s end, it theoretically could have
been fornication or adultery since this is unspecified in the particular Greek
that is being used in John four. In light of this, it is very possible that the
particular Greek words that the woman used to describe her relationships (in
the negative: “οὐκ ἔχω ἄνδρα”
– ouk echō andra) could prompt a person to use the word
“fornication” to describe her situation, since this terminology can very well
imply “an illicit relationship” in Greek, especially after the illegitimating
spin that Jesus puts on it. Technically speaking, cohabitation is a type of
(unlawful) “marriage,” and in the case where she did not actually make a
covenant with them, these relationships could easily be called, “fornication
marriages.” And this guilt of fornication is something that even she saw after
Jesus gently pointed out her sin. (Note: You would
almost have to really consider this passage in Greek to fully get all of the
Greek details that I am briefly referencing here).
What this
basically shows us is that, Irenaeus assumed that the early readers of his day
would have no problem automatically agreeing and understanding that having
“many marriages” meant that she was definitely in an immoral relationship in each
of these cases, no matter what the details, having passed beyond “one husband,” and Irenaeus seems to feel no need of any
explanation, assuming that his readers already all knew about this.
Did the Early Church
Teach a Betrothal-Exception?
Common ‘Historical’ Objections to Betrothal
Many times I
have been asked how I teach a “betrothal-exception” for Mat_19:9 when ‘the
early church did not support it’. To put it in another way, one of the main
‘historical objections’ that are claimed against a “betrothal-exception” for Mat_19:9 is that many
in the early church did not recognize Jesus’ exception to be specifically
addressing a betrothal-divorce, and some of these early leaders applied the
exception to fully-married spouses. This claim definitely deserves some
attention and consideration, and there are many things we need to cover to
accurately answer this question.
Why The Early Church Cannot Answer The
Betrothal Question
It is a very
tragic but basic fact that we need to come to terms with, that we can
neither prove nor disprove
a betrothal-exception by the testimony of the ‘early church’ for two very
important reasons:
(1) Lack of Extra-Biblical
Evidence from Real Disciples
Outside of the
Bible, we do not actually have any statements or evidence from the original,
earliest followers of Jesus that show whether or not they taught betrothal for
Matthew’s exception.
[Note: If you ever happen to find
any of this ‘missing evidence’, please contact us and
let us know!]
(2) Lack of
Agreement Among (Mostly) More Heretical Leaders
The quotes
that we have that do not support betrothal come from a pool of later church
leaders who disagreed on what the actual exception applied to. So far, I think
I’ve counted about three or four different things that later church leaders thought
that porneia referred to, (and maybe we will eventually
be able to cover these various positions here one day).
The earliest
followers of Jesus seem to have assumed that everyone already knew and agreed
with what the exception referred to, and the later leaders seem to have each come
up with various ideas about what they each thought the exception clause
addressed. (Important Note: although none of
the later leaders seem to be able to consistently agree on what exactly the
exception clause was, every single early and late leader knew that the
exception did not allow remarriage).
The Problems With ‘Lacking Historical Evidence’
Without any
statements from the faithful people who knew the Apostles, and even clear disagreement
among the unfaithful people who later followed, what we’re left with is
basically a lack of any substantial evidence for
or against the betrothal teaching in early
church history. If you use this lack of evidence as evidence
against the betrothal teaching, then this is a very obvious logical fallacy: you
are never supposed to argue from silence, and as others have correctly said, “absence
of evidence is not evidence for absence”.
As a consequence to this ‘lack of historical
evidence’, many have quickly concluded that teaching betrothal today is a shaky
belief without any confirming evidence outside of the Bible. This also is obviously a very mindless conclusion
since we all know that the Bible is full of perfect truth, and the reality of Jewish
betrothal can very clearly be demonstrated without any question in the Scriptures,
and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting that this is what Jesus is
referencing in His exception.
But even if people do still trip over the
apparent ‘lack of historical evidence’ to support the betrothal teaching, we
should keep in mind that just because we don’t have evidence from the earliest
followers of Jesus, does not mean that we do not have any historical evidence
for betrothal: (1) Although it comes through an unfaithful witness, we have at least one semi-early
church account about the exception clause that supports betrothal, (2) although
we do not have a lot of early church evidence, we do have a huge amount of
evidence for betrothal throughout countless writings of the Jews (especially in
the ancient Jewish Talmud).
Three
Early Factors that Were Used Against a
Betrothal-Exception
As far as I
have found, the main reasons that betrothal was not a universal teaching in the
early church was because:
(1) Some
church leaders wanted to incorporate unique elements of the Greek Septuagint
(including what Protestants call the Apocrypha) into New
Testament theology (e.g. Pro_18:22
LXX and Sir_25:26 – both of which are not present in current Hebrew-based,
Protestant Bibles).
(2) There was
a work that was compiled and embellished with the title “Apostolic
Constitutions” (compiled
~390 AD) and it applied these
passages above directly to New Testament Marriage. It is hard to say when this
work was finally compiled, and what changes took place by the hand of whomever
embellished it, and what were the details of the original works that preceded
it, but one way or the other, this compilation or its older original works from
which it was derived may have had some effect on influencing some of the early
church to believe that divorce after marriage was commanded in cases of
adultery, and not just fornication.
(3) Some
church leaders wanted to uphold the supposed Scripturalness
of a then famous work entitled The Shepherd of Hermas
(150 AD; see Hermas “Book Two,” “Part One,”
“Commandment Fourth,” Ante-Nicene
Fathers)
While many waver over betrothal
through these things, I don’t know if you will struggle as much after we take a
closer look at them. But more than anything, I hope you will take the greatest
heed to the Bible, and we have shown an enormous amount of evidence in the main
book that the exception is for prostitution before marriage, and not
adultery or other such sins. And I think many readers would appreciate seeing
for themselves what types of texts motivated many in
the later part of the early church to not think of the exception as being
limited to porneia (prostitution) as Jesus had
specified.
Below is a very detailed analysis of the
texts that were extremely influential in concluding that Jesus’ exception
included adultery as well as fornication. In general, none of these early texts
are used today against a betrothal-divorce (like some early church leaders used
them), but I would conclude that these things are some of the main ways people
first missed the betrothal details in Matthew during the latter part of the
early church.
The following information may be an
overwhelming amount of detail for some, which each reader does not necessarily
need to go through, but in the name of being thorough and complete, I have
included it here for those who would be willing to wade through such details.
The
Shepherd of Hermas
The Shepherd of Hermas is a
very bad book (even including sexual-religious perversions) that a significant
number of people in the early church accepted as scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas does not support betrothal.
Below I have inserted the actual Greek among the English text, alongside
key words from the Shepherd, to show the Greek Behind this work:
“Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, [μοιχεια
(moicheia)] does the
man sin if he continue to live with her?” And he said to me, “As long as he
remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living
with her. But if the husband know that his wife has
gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, [πορνεια (porneia)] and yet
the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a
sharer in her adultery.” [μοιχειας (moicheias)] And I
said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The
husband should put her away, [απολυσατω
(apolusatō) – basically the same as in Mat_5:32] and remain by himself. But if he put his
wife away [απολυσας
(apolusas)] and marry another, he also commits adultery.”
[μοιχαται
(moichatai)
– Exactly the same as Mat_5:32]
Although the current
version of the Shepherd that most people use today
does not exclusively stick to the vocabulary
specifically used by Jesus for the exception (prostitution/ fornication), we
should be very careful to notice that there are many difficult textual
considerations to this text – there are textual variations that interchange and
confuse the exception (as seen above) but there are also texts that actually
use the same specific words that Jesus did. – it is
hard to say whether or not the Shepherd of Hermas
originally said fornication and or adultery (as seen here).
Did some leaders in the early church have
this version of Hermas that confuses the exception wording? Either way, Hermas
is clearly a bad work that does not promote the faithful message of Jesus, but
a corrupted religion that is not holy or righteous. Whatever the variations are
with this particular passage, some in the early church believed that this
underhanded work was Scripture, and they were affected by it to allow divorce
after marriage.
Sirach
The
Greek of Sirach that I analyzed,
Keyed to Strong’s Numbers
Sir_25:25-26 LXX μὴ
δῷςG1325 ὕδατι
διέξοδονG1327
μηδὲ γυναικὶ
πονηρᾷG4190
παρρησίαν·
Related to G3844 26 εἰ
μὴ πορεύεταιG4198 κατὰ
χεῖράς σου, ἀπὸ τῶν σαρκῶν
σου ἀπότεμε
~ G664 / (G615) αὐτήν.
My
Translation
Sir_25:25-26 Jos.Trans. Do not give water an outlet, nor [give to] a wicked woman [a chance] to go abroad. 26 If she will not go with your hands*, cut her away [or kill her] from your flesh**.
[Small, Technical Side Note: The Latin Vulgate is worded
slightly different:
Sir_25:34-36 DRB Give no issue to thy water, no, not a little: nor to a wicked woman liberty to gad abroad. 35 If she walk not at thy hand, she will confound thee in the sight of thy enemies. 36 Cut her off from thy flesh, lest she always abuse thee.]
Greek
Notes (and More)
* This is a literal rendition of a phrase that means,
“If she does not go with you, right next to you, where and how you want to
go...”; Not “staying with someone’s hand” violates the Jewish principal of a woman’s
“warning and seclusion” to not be with a certain man or men whom she is not
married to, as discussed all throughout the Talmud. This “warning and
seclusion”/ “staying with someone’s hand” always pertains to forms of sexual
immorality in the Talmud.
** Apparently due to an alternative source text, the
KJV’s Apocrypha (and naturally, Brenton’s copy of
it) adds here, “...and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.” These words
are not in the Greek of any Septuagint that I have been able to look at (as
seen previously), including Rahlfs LXX
compilation (which is commonly used today), or Codex Sinaiticus, nor are they
in the Latin Vulgate (as seen below). The NETS (A New English
Translation of the Septuagint) agrees with me in
omitting these words (although they still suppose that the verse means to “divorce”
in their translation notes).
** I am
convinced that Sirach is not talking about a “divorce” that
“cuts away” a spouse from one’s flesh, but the use of the prescribed penalty
against adultery under Moses, which accomplishes this “cutting away” by death.
This becomes clearer in light of the context, and especially in light of the
Greek phraseology that is used in Sirach 25 and 26, and elsewhere in the book:
Sir_6:4 - Wicked [πονηρὰ] souls will die;
Sir_25:25 - She is wicked [πονηρᾷ]; “wicked” is used to communicate immorality);
Sir_25:26 - So cut her away [ἀπότεμε] from your flesh,
Examples Where Cut Away Means Kill
Jdg_5:26 – και απετεμεν* σισαρα
– LXX uses this as “killing Sisera”
[* απετεμεν:
in some texts, which is basically the same word that is used in Sirach]
Isa_38:12 – Somewhat metaphorically using it “ἐκτεμεῖν” for
death
This word is closely related to the same word used in Jesus’
threat to kill illegitimate children:
Rev_2:23 CAB I will kill [ἀποκτενῶ G615] her children by [in] death…
This last version of the word is used all throughout the LXX and GNT (at least 242 times in 229 places) as a primary word for killing:
Gen_4:8; Gen_4:14; Gen_4:15; Gen_4:23; Gen_4:25; Gen_12:12; Gen_18:25; Gen_20:2; Gen_20:11; Gen_26:7; Gen_27:41; Gen_27:42; Gen_34:25; Gen_34:26; Gen_37:18; Gen_37:20; Gen_37:26; Gen_38:7; Gen_42:37; Gen_49:6; Exo_1:16; Exo_4:23; Exo_4:24; Exo_5:21; Exo_13:15; Exo_16:3; Exo_17:3; Exo_21:14; Exo_22:19; Exo_22:24; Exo_23:7; Exo_32:12; Exo_32:27; Lev_20:4; Lev_20:15; Lev_20:16; Num_11:15; Num_16:13; Num_16:41; Num_20:4; Num_21:5; Num_22:33; Num_25:5; Num_31:7; Num_31:8; Num_31:17; Num_35:19; Num_35:21; Deu_9:28; Deu_13:9; Deu_22:22; Deu_22:25; Deu_32:39; Jos_7:5; Jos_8:24; Jos_10:11; Jos_10:26; Jos_11:11; Jos_11:17; Jos_13:22; Jdg_7:25; Jdg_8:17; Jdg_8:18; Jdg_8:19; Jdg_8:20; Jdg_9:5; Jdg_9:18; Jdg_9:24; Jdg_9:54; Jdg_9:56; Jdg_15:12; Jdg_16:2; Jdg_20:5; 1Sa_15:3; 1Sa_15:8; 1Sa_16:2; 1Sa_17:46; 1Sa_24:10; 1Sa_24:11; 1Sa_24:18; 2Sa_4:10; 2Sa_4:11; 2Sa_4:12; 2Sa_12:9; 2Sa_14:7; 2Sa_23:21; 1Ki_2:5; 1Ki_2:32; 1Ki_12:27; 1Ki_18:12; 1Ki_18:13; 1Ki_18:14; 1Ki_19:1; 1Ki_19:10; 1Ki_19:14; 2Ki_8:12; 2Ki_10:9; 2Ki_11:18; 2Ki_17:25; 1Ch_2:3; 1Ch_7:21; 1Ch_10:14; 1Ch_11:23; 1Ch_19:18; 2Ch_21:4; 2Ch_21:13; 2Ch_22:1; 2Ch_22:8; 2Ch_22:9; 2Ch_22:11; 2Ch_25:4; 2Ch_28:6; 2Ch_28:7; 2Ch_28:9; 2Ch_36:17; Neh_9:26; Est_2:21; Est_9:6; Est_9:15; Job_1:15; Job_1:17; Psa_10:8; Psa_59:11; Psa_78:31; Psa_78:34; Psa_78:47; Psa_94:6; Psa_101:8; Psa_105:29; Psa_135:10; Psa_136:18; Psa_139:19; Pro_21:25; Ecc_3:3; Isa_14:20; Isa_66:3; Jer_20:17; Jer_26:21; Jer_38:9; Jer_38:16; Lam_2:4; Lam_2:20; Lam_2:21; Lam_3:43; Eze_7:16; Eze_9:6; Eze_13:19; Eze_23:10; Eze_23:47; Eze_33:27; Dan_2:13; Hos_2:3; Hos_6:5; Hos_9:16; Amo_2:3; Amo_4:10; Amo_9:1; Amo_9:4; Hab_1:17; Mat_10:28; Mat_14:5; Mat_16:21; Mat_17:23; Mat_21:35; Mat_21:38; Mat_21:39; Mat_22:6; Mat_23:34; Mat_23:37; Mat_24:9; Mat_26:4; Mar_3:4; Mar_6:19; Mar_8:31; Mar_9:31; Mar_10:34; Mar_12:5; Mar_12:7; Mar_12:8; Mar_14:1; Luk_9:22; Luk_11:47; Luk_11:48; Luk_11:49; Luk_12:4; Luk_12:5; Luk_13:4; Luk_13:31; Luk_13:34; Luk_18:33; Luk_20:14; Luk_20:15; Joh_5:18; Joh_7:1; Joh_7:19; Joh_7:20; Joh_7:25; Joh_8:22; Joh_8:37; Joh_8:40; Joh_11:53; Joh_12:10; Joh_16:2; Joh_18:31; Act_3:15; Act_7:52; Act_21:31; Act_23:12; Act_23:14; Act_27:42; Rom_7:11; Rom_11:3; 2Co_3:6; Eph_2:16; 1Th_2:15; Rev_2:13; Rev_2:23; Rev_6:8; Rev_6:11; Rev_9:5; Rev_9:15; Rev_9:18; Rev_9:20; Rev_11:5; Rev_11:7; Rev_11:13; Rev_13:10; Rev_13:15; Rev_19:21;
Perhaps the most convincing example of killing an
immoral woman (as I would think Sirach says), is Deu_22:
Deu_22:22 CAB And if a man be found lying with a woman married to a man, you shall kill [ἀποκτενεῖτε (nearly the same word in Sirach)] them both, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shall you remove the wicked one out of Israel.
Deu_22:25 CAB But if a man find in the field a young woman that is betrothed, and he should force her and lie with her, you shall slay [ἀποκτενεῖτε] the man that lay with her only.
The Mosaic death penalty
specifically uses the same Greek word for punishing adulterers that Sirach does
for his ‘immoral woman’.
Proverbs 18 – LXX
Another Reason Why Some Thought Divorce After Marriage was Sometimes Commanded
Pro_18:22 Brenton He that has found a good wife has found favours, and has received gladness from God. (18:22A) He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly.
This last part, after “18:22A,” is not in the current Hebrew text (MT), but it is in
the current Greek Septuagint, and this is one of the places in their Old
Testament, which Apostolic Constitutions (and perhaps some others in the early church)
used and incorporated into their understanding of lawful divorce in the New
Covenant.
What We
Can See From these Three Passages
When addressing these
passages, I would be forced to conclude that many in the early church did not
make the best of choices when it came to categorizing the usefulness and or
application of such passages.
First, when it comes to the
Shepherd, we must insist that there is easily enough evidence to
conclude that it is not Scripture, and definitely should not be used to broaden
what Jesus said specifically. Thankfully, even some of those who used it this
way admitted that others did not accept it as Scripture: Origen
(185-255 AD), who accepted The Shepherd as
Scripture, reported that it was not accepted by all this way, and that it was
even despised by some. In addition to
this, Tertullian (160-230 AD) cited a number of considerable things against
this book (although he did it with the wrong motives of supporting heretical Montanism), and Eusebius (270-340AD), also said that all
did not accept it as Scripture.
Second, if you accept the Septuagint (Greek)
version of Proverbs 18:22 over the Current Hebrew, Masoretic Text, and even if you accept Sirach as
Scripture (as all Catholics and a minority of Protestants do), both of these
sources do not claim to be the New Testament teaching about marriage and
divorce. Both of these sources correspond to the Old Testament, and even
if they are legitimate, Jesus’ Words are the great update on marriage, and
these Words, and those of His Apostles which He sent us, must be taken as The
Supreme and Ultimate standard for New Testament theology:
So, while Sirach says, “If she will
not go with your hands, cut
her away from your flesh,”
(Sir_25:26 Jos.Trans.) Jesus (basically) says, ‘Though you must cut off your very own hand
to avoid sin (see: Mat_5:27-30), you may not kill (or even divorce) your wedded one flesh
wife!’ (Paraphrased from: Mat_5:31-32; Mat_19:6; Mar_10:8-9; 1Co_7:10-14; also: Rom_7:2).
While the Septuagint of the Old Testament Pro_18:22 says at the end, “…he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly,” the New Testament says, “…what God has joined together, let not man separate,” (Mat_19:6 CAB). And again Paul clarifies this unto a more specific situation by saying, “…If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a wife who has an unbelieving husband, if he consents to live with her, let her not divorce him,” (1Co_7:12-13 CAB; also see verses 1Co_7:14-16). And what reason do we have to presume that all unbelieving wives will not be adulteresses, while willing to cohabitate? And how much more likely is it for unbelieving husbands to be adulterers, either today, or even more so in the immoral Corinth to which this was originally written? It is not to righteous unbelieving spouses that Paul directs the believer to remain with, but the unrighteous. The majority of unbelieving men in our culture have no reason in their minds to remain faithful in every case to their wives, since they are all bent on wickedness, lust, indulgence and evil. How much more in notorious Corinth?
And foreshadowing all of this, contrary to
all apparent reason and expectation from the Law, the prophet is told
beforehand:
Hos_1:2 CAB “Go, take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication”
And then again:
Hos_3:1 CAB And the Lord said to me, Go yet [again], and love a woman that loves evil things, an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel, and they have respect to strange gods, and love cakes of dried grapes.
Statements like this would
not only update an Old Testament Proverb, but would also disqualify the
theology of the Shepherd (written in the 1st
or 2nd Century) from being acceptable New Testament theology.
But sadly, many did not
keep this proper value of the Old Testament and the Kingdom, including the
value of Jesus’ distinction between the actual porneia
exception and “adultery”. And though they retained the rule of absolutely no
remarriage after divorce, and though it was within this righteous fortitude
that they protected marriage, many still lost the salt of the betrothal
distinction, so much so, that I have even come across places where some,
although they meant well for marriage, directly misquote Jesus:
Tertullian
Misquotes Jesus’ Exception
Tertullian eventually fell
into more blatant heresy than what he started out with, and the surrounding context
of these quotes is of the nature of that fall into Montanism.
I’m not saying that everyone was at this point who confused the exception, but
I am including him here because, even though He did not accept the Shepherd, he still makes one of the clearest examples of
misquoting Jesus due to the lack of distinctions that Jesus made:
But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not
another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will
of God to prohibit divorce: the fact
that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery,
makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman)
dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. (Mat_5:32) A divorced
woman cannot even marry legitimately… to us, even
if we do divorce them, even marriage will not be lawful.
(Tertullian, Part Forth, Ch IX, that is,
“Tertullian On Monogamy,” in e-sword at: 4.01.06)
…inasmuch as “whoever shall have dismissed a wife
(for any cause) except the cause of adultery, maketh
her commit adultery; and he who marrieth one dismissed by a husband committeth adultery.”
(Tertullian, Part Fourth, Ch XVI, that is,
“Tertullian On Modesty,” in e-sword at: 4.01.09)
Do you see what state
things came to with some who did not distinguish porneia
and adultery? In these quotes, although he correctly forbids remarriage (like
every other church leader did) do you see that Tertullian makes no distinction
at all like Jesus makes?
Mat_5:32 But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except for a report of fornication, [porneia] causes her to commit adultery [moichao]: and if anyone marries her that is divorced he commits adultery [moichao]. (KJB)
Mat_19:9 And I say to you,
any one divorces his wife, only
for fornicationG4202 [Porneia].
And if he marries another, he
commits adultery: G3429
[moichao]
and whoever marries her
who is divorced commits adulteryG3429 [moichao]. (KJB)
But There is Betrothal Evidence in the Early Church
From some of these things, many have mistakenly concluded that the betrothal teaching was not in the early Church at all. It is easy to overlook some important details and think that everyone thought the exception was widely applicable for Jews and Gentiles alike. But if the exception was in fact addressing a betrothal situation, it would only make sense for at least some early church leaders to know about it, and strategically cater its presentation to not confuse uninformed gentiles.
Justin
Martyr Omits the Exception Clause
Justin
Martyr was a philosopher who ended up getting killed in Rome after deciding to
spend his life to teach Christianity. Because he maintained his philosophical
status as leverage to preach, he had opportunities to address pagans in
authority in defense of the Christians, who were experiencing much persecution
at the time. Although he makes a considerable number of mistakes in his
theology, still, these “apologies” end up telling us considerable details about
early Christianity, especially in light of trying to explain it to the confused
and malicious unbelievers of his day:
Concerning chastity, He uttered such
sentiments as these: “Whosoever
looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath
committed adultery with her already in his heart before God.” And, “If thy
right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the
kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into
everlasting fire.” And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from
another husband, committeth adultery.”* …So that all
who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and
those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act
commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but
also our thoughts, are open before God.
(110-165
AD, Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap. XV, Ante-Nicene Fathers;
in e-Sword at 1.07.02)
* See: Mat_5:28, Mat_5:29, Mat_5:32
Notice What Justin Martyr Shows Us
·
As every other early church writer, he very expressly shows that all
remarriage after divorce is adultery.
· It is clear that he is referencing Matthew, since he goes into visual adultery before remarriage adultery, and this is uniquely the order of Mat_5:27-32.
·
But also notice that he never mentions any exception to this rule, nor
does he ever go into permissions for divorce as included in Matthew.
This is just a sample
quote of a few others like it from other sources where we have an example of
the way that some talked with pagans concerning marriage, and did not include
the Jewish exception clause. (Note: although Justin Martyr does not allow any
divorce in this case, tragically he seems to have eventually come to the point
where he allowed divorce for adultery, like other unfaithful leaders.)
Athenagoras Allows Divorced During Betrothal
Although there is even less reason to trust an
early writer named Athenagoras, he still shows the same pattern as Justin
Martyr, except he also says something that is extremely important for betrothal
…a person should either remain as he was born, or be
content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery.
“For whosoever puts away his wife,” says He, “and 147 marries another, commits adultery;” (Mat_19:9)
not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an
end, nor to marry again…
(~177 AD, Writings of Athenagoras, Chap. XXXIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers;
in e-Sword at 2.04.04)
It is evident here with Athenagoras (just like the quote from Justin Martyr above it) that Athenagoras intends to reference Matthew
five and nineteen, since he in the same way precedes this quote with thoughts
like the following that are only recorded in Matthew and not the other Gospels:
“…the
indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in
those cases in which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the
deeds.”
At first, it appears that Athenagoras did not give any exception at all when he referenced what Jesus taught about divorce and remarriage to pagans, even when he was referencing Matthew’s divorce and remarriage teaching. And while the idea that Athenagoras did not include an exception is mostly correct (especially for gentiles), we can actually see a whole lot more stated if we take a closer look.
Even though this quote seems to have no exception at first, the idea of forbidding a man to divorce a woman when he has ended her virginity, actually indirectly suggests the possibility of divorcing her if he did not in fact end her virginity. In other words, Athenagoras’ forbidding of divorce (based on Jesus is teaching) actually conforms exactly to the possibility of betrothal-divorce described in Deuteronomy 22 (and Mat_1:19). Without any question or doubt, Athenagoras is clearly referencing Jesus’ teaching to the betrothal chapter in the Law of Moses.
Athenagoras effectively repackaged a Jewish exception clause and rephrased it in a way that even an uninformed gentile can understand, and he presented this very thing as the teaching of Jesus on marriage and divorce.
People who say that there is no evidence for betrothal in the early church are very wrong!
Your Required Homework
Very important note: here is your homework and application for considering these historical facts. Read Deuteronomy 22, while especially considering the implications of what is taught in that chapter as well as what Athenagoras says, and consider how it is possible for Athenagoras to understand Jesus’ teaching on marriage to be in perfect harmony with Deuteronomy 22.
Compare what Athenagoras says above, with the betrothal chapter in Deuteronomy 22, especially including the following verses:
Deu_22:13-29
– the betrothal chapter
Deu_22:14-21
– a man claims that he did not end his wife’s virginity (i.e. accusations of
betrothal-fornication)
Deu_22:19
– the man is never allowed to divorce her after they prove that he did in fact
end her virginity
Deu_22:28-29
– a man may never divorce a non-betrothed woman whom he raped (and ended her
virginity)
The betrothal chapter is the only chapter in the entire Bible that explicitly is in the posture of “not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end”, and this is exactly what Athenagoras references as Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Athenagoras’ ‘exception clause’ only allows divorce for betrothal-fornication, and this is exactly what we teach Jesus’ exception says.
There is huge amount of evidence for a betrothal-exception in the Scriptures, and we at least have this one historical reference to a betrothal exception from around 177 AD.
The
Authenticity of “the Woman Taken in Adultery”
A significant number of scholars have asserted that this entire passage is not original because it is not found in the oldest copies we have of the Gospel of John. – But we should remember to mention that some of these “oldest copies” basically make reference to this story in their marginal notes (by “diacritical marks”) at the place we now have this story. So, even if they did not include this story, it is pretty evident that they knew of it.
This story is also included (in part or in full) in 17 of the 23 of the Old Latin manuscripts of John, as well as other sources such as “the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum,”* The so called, “Apostolic Constitutions” (an apocryphal work, apparently compiled about the late third century), and defended by Jerome (347-420 A.D.) and many other quotes and documents following these things in church history.
But perhaps the earliest evidence in addition to all of these things is from Eusebius. Eusebius (in Hist. Eccl., iii. 39 records) passes down to us a report from Papias, who was an authoritative witness of A.D. 70-155, who knew the Apostles. Eusebius’ record of Papias’ testimony shows us that, even if the passage was not originally in John, we have reasonable evidence that this story is authentic. We are told that Papias reported this to us concerning this passage:
“…he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins
before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.”
[Sources:
(1) Papias, Fragments of Papias,
End of Point VI; Vol. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, in e-Sword
at 1.06.02); Also see: (2) “Hist. Eccl., iii. 39 records” (“Eusebius: Church
History from A.D. 1-324…” end of point 16, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,”
Series II, Volume I) – see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html]
According to Papias, this “Gospel according
to the Hebrews” is the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew (as
seen in the preceding context of this quote). But whether or not this account of the
woman taken in adultery was originally in John or actually in Hebrew Matthew,
it seems we have reasonable evidence from numerous sources as to its antiquity
and apostolic authenticity.
Copyright © Josiahs Scott, All rights reserved (see below)
The only reason I put this here is to avoid people misusing this work with bad motives. This is officially copyrighted to protect it from those with money in mind, and to preserve it for free distribution, especially in the unlikely event that someone might think to make money off of it rather than maximizing its distribution. You are permitted and encouraged to freely copy and redistribute this work in its entirety, via standard copy machine or electronic documentation as long as you make no money off of it. If you wish to reproduce this work on any larger scale, please contact me at Josiahs@trueconnection.org. You may also quote this document, by citing the reference as:
“[Name of
Bible Study]” By Josiahs Scott, www.TrueConnection.org