6. How Reliable Are Early Christian Writings About Divorce and Remarriage?
Traditionalists cite early Christian writings as evidence that theirs is the biblical divorce and remarriage doctrine. They claim the opposition to remarriage after divorce in these writings faithfully preserves the message of Jesus,
that the authors’ closer historical proximity to New Testament events enhances the credibility of their theology, and such writings are evidence of a fifteen-hundred-year theological consensus against remarriage after divorce. To answer these three claims, it is first necessary to identify and examine the early Christian writings themselves. A minority of orthodox writings1 from first to third century believers address divorce and remarriage beyond an incidental statement or a quotation of Scripture. These writings form the foundation of extrabiblical doctrine
on which the Roman Catholic Church and successive traditionalists build their divorce and remarriage theology.
Clement of Alexandria writes, “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”2 But Scripture does not contain the law Clement cites against disunion: “Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication.”3 This is one of two misrepresentations of Scripture by Clement; here he misquotes Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9. Matthew 19:9 addresses divorce and remarriage: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”4 Jesus makes a conditional statement in this verse. He states divorce not due to sexual immorality (condition one) and remarriage (condition two) result in adultery. Clement changes the conditional statement into a command, “Thou shalt not put away [divorce] thy wife, except for the cause of fornication [sexual immorality],”5 and isolates divorce and its exception clause from remarriage. He limits the exception clause to a criterion for divorce and interprets remarriage as adultery without exception. “…and it regards as fornication [adultery], the marriage of those separated [divorced] while the other is alive.”6
It is not a scripture but a counterfeit Clement invokes here to support his opposition to remarriage after divorce.
Of Matthew 19:11-12 he writes, “Concerning the words, ‘Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it,’ they do not realize the context.”7 Clement contextualizes Jesus’ eunuch statement as an analogy against remarriage after a divorce for the specific exception from Matthew 19:9. “After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: ‘Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted.’ What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man’s wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another.”8 Clement misrepresents Scripture a second time changing what the disciples communicate to Jesus in Matthew 19:10 from a comment to a question. In Matthew 19:10 the disciples’ sentiment is to not marry (e.g. eunuchism), and it is to that sentiment that Jesus replies with His eunuch analogy in Matthew 19:11-12. That is the Scriptural context of Jesus’ eunuch statement.
Matthew 19:9-12, NIV9
9“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others – and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
What the disciples state, “…it is better not to marry;”10 Clement makes a question, “…it is better not to marry?”11
He suggests, “What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man’s wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another.”12 Clement eisegetes Matthew 19:10 to be a question about whether or not (re)marriage is permissible after a divorce that occurs due to the Matthew 19:9 exception clause. He casts Matthew 19:11-12 as the prohibitive answer against (re)marriage after divorce for the exception clause. Clement changes the text and the context of Scripture to produce this evidence against remarriage after divorce.
He writes this commentary of Jesus’ teaching on the adultery of remarriage: “‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”13 Clement’s observation, “…for did he [latter husband] not take her, she would return to her [former] husband,”14 indicates the latter husband taking the divorcee in remarriage inhibits her from returning to her former husband. This is in accord with Scripture: “then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again…”15 Deuteronomy 24:4 prohibits the marriage of former spouses if either remarries a new spouse after their divorce. Clement observes Scripture; he does not impel the divorcee to leave her latter husband for the former husband.
Tertullian believes the act of sex establishes marriage. “For let us see what marriage is in the eye of God; and thus we shall learn what adultery equally is. Marriage is (this): when God joins ‘two into one flesh;’ or else, finding (them already) joined in the same flesh, has given His seal to the conjunction.”16 Scripture indicates a covenant establishes marriage and precedes the act of sex.17Genesis 2:24 states a man and wife unite (marriage covenant) and then become one flesh by sex. Intercourse does not establish marriage, because intercourse that precedes a marriage covenant Scripture condemns as fornication.18 Tertullian likewise describes adultery according to its sexual but not its covenantal component. “Adultery is (this): when, the two having been–in whatsoever way–disjoined, other–nay, rather alien–flesh is mingled (with either): flesh concerning which it cannot be affirmed, ‘This is flesh out of my flesh, and this bone out of my bones.’ For this, once for all done and pronounced, as from the beginning, so now too, cannot apply to ‘other’ flesh.”19 “Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved;” he writes, “to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery.”20 It is the covenant that bestows and maintains the matrimonial state that Tertullian describes; “matrimony is undissolved” after an unjustifiable divorce, which makes the consummation of remarriage an act analogous to extramarital adultery. After a justifiable divorce, when matrimony is “rightly dissolved,” God disjoins spouses from their covenant and remarriage is not analogous to adultery.
Tertullian thinks the execution of John the Baptist is the catalyst for Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage.21 To support this, he introduces or reinforces the errant tradition that John denounces Herod’s marriage for being a remarriage after an unjustifiable divorce. “The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband.”22 Tertullian conflates John’s opposition to an unlawful marriage with Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage and recategorizes remarriages after divorce, such as those of the Samaritan woman at the well,23 as illegitimate. The narrative accounts of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 make no reference to John, Herod, or their conflict; the context of His teaching pertains to the Pharisees and the Law. Scripture does not record John using the terms: divorce, remarriage, or adultery to condemn Herod’s marriage.24John specifically defines his objection to Herod’s marriage: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”25 That it is “not lawful” and Herod has his “brother’s wife” indicate the standard he uses to judge Herod’s marriage is the Law26 – specifically Leviticus 20:21 – and not the teaching of Jesus about divorce, remarriage, and adultery. Tertullian incorrectly claims that Jesus addresses “unlawful marriages”27 in His divorce and remarriage teaching. Jesus identifies a punctiliar act of sin, the adultery of remarriage. Jesus makes no statement so as to recategorize remarriage following unjustifiable divorce as unlawful marriage, adulterous marriage, illegitimate marriage, etc.
“Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms.”28 The divorce condition Tertullian cites, the Matthean exception,29 is sexual immorality.30 He presents this harmonization as one of two solutions to the ostensible contradiction between the divorce and remarriage teachings of Moses and Jesus. Moses, he says, “…prohibits divorce in the same sense Christ does…”31 Tertullian compares the precept of Moses, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and the prohibition of Jesus, Matthew 19:9, to equate the conditions of justifiable divorce in Deuteronomy and the conditions of justifiable divorce in Matthew. His error is that indecency, the Hebrew word ervah,32 in Deuteronomy 24:1 does not describe justifiable divorce, but Matthew 19:9 does describe justifiable divorce for the cause of sexual immorality, the Greek word porneia.33 Indecency in the precept of Moses is not sexual immorality because the Law sentences death for such offenses.34 The precept is solely a regulation of unjustifiable divorce. The other solution Tertullian presents to the ostensible contradiction between the divorce and remarriage teachings of Moses and Jesus appeals to dispensationalism.35 He proposes Jesus’ words, “…it was not this way from the beginning,”36 abolish the divorce regulations of the Law37 and restore the marriage ideal of the first dispensation, in the beginning,38 before sin.39 “‘Moses,’ says He, ‘because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so’–for this reason, indeed, because He who had ‘made them male and female’ had likewise said, ‘They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was.”40 However, Tertullian’s dispensational resolution to an ostensible contradiction results in a legitimate contradiction. Jesus does not abolish the divorce regulations of the Law as Tertullian claims, and He says the Law will endure as long as heaven and earth do.41 There is continuity in the divorce and remarriage teachings of Moses and Jesus; the same Creator Tertullian credits with marriage is the Author of the divorce regulations in the Law and Christ who affirms the ideal of the Dispensation of Innocence and the regulations of the Dispensation of Law. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mirrors the pattern of marriage, divorce, and remarriage Jesus calls adultery and textually implicates adultery to be the sin inherent in remarriage after unjustifiable divorce.42 Jesus, therefore, defers to God’s Word over lifelong marriage and divorce. The solution is there is no contradiction, no change, between the teachings of Moses and Jesus about the adultery of remarriage.
The assertion, “…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,”43 pertains to a widower who converts to Christianity then marries again – or to a widow who converts and marries again.44 The disunion he cites45 is of, “…death, of course, not through divorce; inasmuch as to the divorced he [the Apostle Paul] would grant no permission to marry, in the teeth of the primary precept.”46 Tertullian labels both second marriage,47 marriage subsequent to the death of a Christian spouse, and remarriage,48 marriage subsequent to the divorce of Christians or non-Christians, as adulterous. The premise justification affords some new believers (a widower or widow) subsequent marriage, but justification does not afford other new believers (a divorcee) subsequent marriage, is, on the basis of Scripture, inconsistent and indefensible. The new believer in Christ is a new creation with the imputation of His righteousness, “…if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.”49 To deny the new believer has remission for remarriage after divorce devalues justification and the delineation of death in sin to life in Jesus.50 To deny remission to any believer for remarriage after divorce is contrary to the character of God, that he, “…is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”51
Origen rightly rejects harmonization of the divorce and remarriage teachings of Moses and Jesus by the equation of indecency, in Deuteronomy 24:1, and sexual immorality, in Matthew 5:32, 19:9, as justifiable divorce motives. “…if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood,”52 he writes. “For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written…”53 The passage, Origen recognizes, regulates unjustifiable divorce.
He dismisses the ostensible contradiction between the divorce and remarriage teachings of Moses and Jesus by exemption of Jesus from the Law: “For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath, and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it ‘until a time of reformation,’ and to change the law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also to give after the former way and after the former heart another way and another heart, ‘in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation.’ And let these things be said according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.”54 This fallacious notion Jesus changes the Law (i.e. divorce) or claims exemption (i.e. the Sabbath) lingers as an errant tradition of Christianity. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath and Author of the Law, but Jesus does not change or exempt Himself from them. Some Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of breaking the Law by picking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath,55 but Jesus cites the Sabbath work of the priests and an account of King David to dispute their behavior is unlawful. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law is evidence He does not condone or commit a violation of the fourth commandment; to violate the Law is to sin,56 and Scripture attests that Jesus is without sin: the perfect High Priest and Sacrifice.57 The same is true of His divorce and remarriage teaching. Jesus does not change or cancel Deuteronomy 24:1-4. He draws attention to the implicit sin in the passage, the sin inherent to remarriage after an unjustifiable divorce.
Jesus states the union of a divorcee, subsequent to an unjustifiable divorce, is a marriage that results in adultery. “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”58 Despite Jesus’ explicit use of the word, marriage, Origen denies the union of a divorcee is a marriage. He concludes, “But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.”59 This erroneous conclusion denies the teaching of Jesus and record of Scripture,60 which verify the remarriage of a divorcee is a legitimate marriage. It is also a misapplication of the Apostle Paul’s statement that a woman is bound to her husband while he lives.61 A woman with a lawful husband who takes another husband – concurrent marriage to two men – is an adulteress. Paul makes the point that if the woman’s husband dies, she may have another husband and not be an adulteress. Romans 7:1-6 reveals the context of Paul’s statement, he uses the death of a husband and freedom of the widow to marry as an analogy to express the death of believers to the Law and freedom of believers to belong to Jesus. “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another – to Him who was raised from the dead…”62 The illustration pertains to death and remarriage. Divorce and remarriage are not applicable to Paul’s analogy, and nowhere in Romans 7:1-6 or 1 Corinthians 7:39 does the Apostle exclusively qualify death or disqualify other reasons as justifiable ends to a marriage covenant.
Origen regards Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a precept of Moses, not God,63 and disputes the validity of its inspiration. His rationale: “…it would be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things, among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the legislation took place with the Spirit of God.”64 Origen claims it is “possible” Moses “persuaded” himself that a law “he promulgated” (i.e. Deuteronomy 24:1-4) without spiritual inspiration is within the “Spirit of God.” The attribution of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Moses, by name, in Matthew 19:7-8 does not invalidate its inspiration. God attributes the Law to Moses, for example, in Joshua 1:7, “…obey all the law my servant Moses gave you…”65 and Malachi 4:4, “Remember the law of my servant, Moses…”66 In the Mark 10 account parallel to Matthew 19, Pharisees ask if divorce is lawful, and Jesus refers them to the Law, by asking, “What did Moses command you?”67 Scripture demonstrates that Moses issues commands, and the commands of Moses are the commands of God.68 Moses says of the Law, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.”69 And confirming its complete inspiration, God says of the Law, “…meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.”70 Deuteronomy 24:4 prohibits former spouses from marriage, if either remarries a new spouse after their divorce, because God rules it a sin; the presence of this judgment of God proves the inspiration of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
The claim these writings faithfully preserve the message of Jesus, and that message is a prohibition of remarriage after divorce without exception, is undone by the unfaithful preservation of Scripture in the writings themselves. Clement of Alexandria misquotes Jesus in Matthew 19:9, converting His conditional statement into a command, and misrepresents the verse, making the exception clause applicable to divorce but not applicable to remarriage. In Matthew 10:10 the disciples speak of rejecting marriage, to which Jesus replies that not all can live as eunuchs. Clement turns their comment into a question and portrays Jesus as relating divorcees, not celibates, to eunuchs. Tertullian projects his opposition to remarriage after divorce into his commentary on John the Baptist and Herod, conflating unlawful marriage, marriage that violates the Law (i.e. Leviticus 20:21), with remarriage after divorce. Tertullian proposes Jesus says the man in a relationship with the Samaritan woman at the well is not her husband
to delegitimize their remarriage, despite Jesus legitimizing the spouses of her previous remarriages as husbands. Origen rejects the inspiration of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because Jesus and Pharisees ascribe the precept to Moses. His stance contradicts verses of Scripture and quotes of God that ascribe the entire Law to Moses in that manner. Origen presents the Apostle Paul’s analogy of death to the Law and remarriage to Jesus out of context to dispute that remarriages of divorcees are legitimate marriages, despite their literal designation as marriages in Scripture.
Such misrepresentation of the content and meaning of Scripture is evidence against faithful preservation claims.
The influence of ascetical and heretical doctrine on the authors of these divorce and remarriage works disproves
the claim the authors’ closer historical proximity to New Testament events enhances their theological credibility. The parallel growth of these errant doctrines to the gospel leads the apostles to confront them in their lifetimes.
The Apostle Paul, for example, cautions the Church at Colossae about those who practice asceticism and heresy,
explaining, “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence,”71 and warning against, “…deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition…”72 and “…worship of angels…”73 Each of these authors bear charges of heresy 74 and censures of the Church that taint their theological credibility. Tertullian, for one, advances and ascends to a position of leadership within the heretical Montanist75 movement. These writings also reflect a predilection for sexual asceticism that exceeds scriptural constraints on matrimony. There are regulations for sexuality within marriage. “A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will,”76 writes Clement. There is opposition to widow/widower remarriage. It is “…adultery if, after the death of your husband, you do marry another…,”77 is Tertullian’s reproach to widows. And there is rejection of divorcee remarriage, which is corollary to the systemic disdain of marriage in asceticism.
The traditionalist claim of a fifteen-hundred-year theological consensus against remarriage after divorce is false,
as the authors of these early Christian writings document instances of remarriage after divorce in their lifetimes. Tertullian writes of women, “…who, when an opportunity for the practice of continence has been offered them, by divorce, or by the decease of the husband, have not only thrown away the opportunity of attaining so great a good, but not even in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that ‘above all they marry in the Lord.’”78 Origen acknowledges the remarriage of a divorcee by writing, “But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living…”79 That “rulers of the church” are among the early believers who permit remarriage after divorce demonstrates a doctrinal divide over divorce and remarriage in Christendom. A historical precedent for remarriage after divorce exists in contrast to the errant doctrine, and later Roman Catholic tradition, of the authors behind these writings.
The authors of these doctrinally substantial early Christian writings on divorce and remarriage demonstrate that their doctrine is a product of their scriptural interpretations; they make no reference, no appeal to oral tradition or instruction from the apostles on divorce and remarriage. Origen, a pupil of Clement, openly admits ignorance to the motivation and application behind Jesus’ teaching.80 Their demonstrable errors prove theirs is not a pure transmission of apostolic doctrine on divorce and remarriage as Roman Catholics and other traditionalists claim. The errancy of these early Christian writings renders them unreliable sources of divorce and remarriage doctrine.
1. “Orthodox” Sources Consulted, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html
Didache Epistle of Barnabas Clement of Rome 2 Clement The Shepherd of Hermas Ignatius of Antioch Polycarp The Martyrdom of Polycarp Epistle to Diognetus Fragments of Papias Quadratus of Athens Aristides Justin Martyr Claudius Apollinaris Minucius Felix Melito of Sardis Hegesippus Dionysius of Corinth Athenagoras of Athens Irenaeus of Lynons Rhodon Theophilus of Caesarea Theophilus of Antioch Maximus of Jerusalem Polycrates of Ephesus Pantaenus Clement of Alexandria Tertullian Serapion of Antioch Apollonius Caius Hippolytus of Rome Origen
Clement of Alexandria
2. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, c23 p14 s1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
3. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, c23 p14 s1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
4. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A10&version=NIV
5. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, c23 p14 s1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
6. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, c23 p14 s1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
7. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 3, c6 p6 s1 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
8. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 3, c6 p6 s2 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
9. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:9-12 NIV https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19%3A9-12&version=NIV
10. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:10 NIV https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19%3A10&version=NIV
11. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 3, c6 p6 s2 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
12. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 3, c6 p6 s2 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
13. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, C23, P14, S4-5 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
14. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata Book 2, C23, P14, S5 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html
15. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Deuteronomy 24:4 NIV https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+24:4&version=NIV
Tertullian
16. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c9 p2 s5-6 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
17. Genesis 2:24; Deuteronomy 22:13-14, 23-24; Jeremiah 31:31-32; Ezekiel 16:8; Malachi 2:14
18. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
19. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c9 p2 s7 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogmay, c9 p2 s4 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
20. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p2 s5 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
21. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s34 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
22. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s36 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
23. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c8 p1 s8 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
24. Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18; Luke 3:19-20
25. Mark 6:18
26. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, c5 p4 s6; c5 p1 s1-5 http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
27. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s36 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
28. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s16-17 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
29. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9
30. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s12, 23-24, 30 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
31. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s23 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
32. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Defilement – Ervah 6172. https://biblehub/strongs/hebrew/6172.htm
33. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Sexual Immorality – Porneia 4202. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4202.htm
34. Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:13-27
35. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c1 p1 s5 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c33 p1 s30 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
36. Bible Gateway. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:8 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A8&version=NIV
37. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c9 p2 s16 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s10 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s33 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
38. Genesis 1
39. Genesis 2
40. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s7-8 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
41. Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 16:17
42. Downer, Tad. The Tame Divorce Doctrine 2018. TameDivorce.com
43. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c11 p1 s29 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
44. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy, c11 p1 s33 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
45. Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39
46. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy c11 p1 s32 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
47. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy c13 p2 s7 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
48. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; The Five Books Against Marcion Book IV, c34 p1 s2 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian124.html
49. Bible Gateway. BibleGateway Passage: 2 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+5%3A17&version=NKJV
50. Ephesians 2:1-5
51. Bible Gateway. BibleGateway Passage: 1 John 1:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+1%3A9&version=NIV
Origen
52. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c24 p1 s2 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090497.htm
53. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c24 p1 s3 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090497.htm
54. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c20 p1 s8-9 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090493.htm
55. Matthew 12:1-7; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5
56. James 2:10; 1 John 3:4
57. Hebrews 2:17, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 7:26
58. Bible Gateway. Matthew 19:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A9&version=NIV
59. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c24 p1 s13 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090497.htm
60. Leviticus 21:14; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Jeremiah 3:1; Ezekiel 44:22; John 4:18
61. Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39
62. Bible Gateway. Romans 7:4 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A4&version=NKJV
63. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c18 p1 s3 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090491.htm
64. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c18 p1 s5 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090491.htm
65. Bible Gateway. Joshua 1:7 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+1%3A7&version=NIV
66. Bible Gateway. Malachi 4:4 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+4%3A4&version=NIV
67. Bible Gateway. Mark 10:3 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4%3A2&version=NIV
68. Deuteronomy 4:5, 12:32, 30:16
69. Bible Gateway. Deuteronomy 4:2 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4%3A2&version=NIV
70. Bible Gateway. Joshua 1:8 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%201:8%20&version=NIV
71. Bible Gateway. Colossians 2:23 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A23&version=NIV
72. Bible Gateway. Colossians 2:8 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=colossians%202:8&version=NIV
73. Bible Gateway. Colossians 2:18 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A18&version=NIV
74. One example of heresy attributed to each author:
Clement (Apocatastasis) Stromata, Book 7 c2 p19 s22
“But necessary corrections, through the goodness of the great overseeing Judge, both by the attendant angels, and by various acts of anticipative judgment, and by the perfect judgment, compel egregious sinners to repent.”
Tertullian (Montanism) On Monogamy c14 p2 s6-7
“‘Hardness of heart’ reigned till Christ’s time; let ‘infirmity of the flesh’ (be content to) have reigned till the time of the Paraclete. The New Law abrogated divorce–it had (somewhat) to abrogate; the New Prophecy (abrogates) second marriage, (which is) no less a divorce of the former (marriage).”
Origen (Pre-existence) De Principiis, Book c9 p7 s11
“And this, it appears to me, will be seen more clearly at last, if each one, whether of celestial or terrestrial or infernal beings, be said to have the causes of his diversity in himself, and antecedent to his bodily birth.”
[Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020]
75. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325 Christian Classics Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/a/schaff/history/2_ch10.htm
76. Kirby, Peter. “Clement of Alexandria.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Stromata, Book 3 c7 p2 s4 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book3-english.html
77. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; On Monogamy c13 p2 s7 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian31.html
78. Kirby, Peter. “Tertullian.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Tertullian To His Wife Book 2, c1 p1 s2 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian29.html
79. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c23 p1 s5 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090496.htm
80. Kirby, Peter. “Origen.” Early Christian Writings. 2020. 5 Dec. 2020; Commentary on Matthew Book XIV, c24 p1 s4-10 https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/009/0090497.htm