When Jerome gave his counsel that Fabiola needed to separate herself from her second marriage in order to be right with God, was he trying to introduce some radical new teaching? Was he trampling underfoot that which had been taught by church leaders prior to him? Or was his counsel in harmony with what the church as a whole had believed up until that point? The following quotes from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs show us a glimpse of how this subject was viewed by certain church fathers who had lived prior to Jerome.
A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage. For a second marriage is only specious adultery. Jesus says, “For whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery.” He does not permit a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. [Athenagoras, p. 554]
That erring Samaritan woman did not remain with one husband. Rather, she committed fornication by many marriages. [Irenaeus, p. 554]
But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry—even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written. For it is said, “A wife is bound so long as her husband lives.” [Origen, p. 555]
A woman is an adulteress—even though she seems to be married to a man—if the former husband is still living. Likewise, also, the man who seems to marry the woman who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her—according to the declaration of the Savior. [Origen, p. 555]
All who have been twice married by human law, are sinners in the eye of our Master. [Justin Martyr, p. 218]
That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, “You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication.” And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. . . . “He who takes a woman who has been put away commits adultery.” [Clement of Alexandria, p. 218]
And I said to him, “Sir, if anyone has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin if he continues 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 knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.” And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery.” [Hermas, p. 218]
The Lord holds it more pleasing that marriage should not be contracted, than that it should at all be dissolved. In short, He prohibits divorce except for the cause of fornication. [Tertullian, p. 218]
Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is put away from her husband also commits adultery.” In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman who has been put away. [Tertullian, p. 218]
“Christ plainly forbids divorce; Moses unquestionably permits it. . .” [Tertullian, p. 219]
The reason why He has abolished divorce, which “was not from the beginning,” was in order to strengthen that thing which “was from the beginning”—the permanent joinder of two into one flesh. . . . So He permits divorce for no cause, except one. . . . So true is it that divorce “was not from the beginning,” that among the Romans, it was not until after the six hundredth year from the building of the city (of Rome) that this type of “hard-heatedness” began to be permitted. . . . To us, even if we do divorce them (i.e., adulterous spouses), marriage will not be lawful. [Tertullian, p. 219]
She must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce. Not that she would have been marriageable—even if she had been able to divorce him. [Tertullian, p. 219]
We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all. [Mark Minucius Felix, p. 219]
A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried. [Cyprian, p. 219]
_______________________
Perhaps we could ask, “What difference does it make what these early Christians believed? Weren’t they reading the same Bible that we are reading? Couldn’t they have been in error themselves?”
The answer is yes, being human, they could have been in error. But if we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that they had one big advantage that we do not have. Many of these men lived close enough to the time of the apostles that if they would have had a question about Bible doctrine, they could have sought counsel in person either from the apostles themselves or from those who had been taught by them.
So let us ask ourselves again. Was Jerome trampling on the teaching of Church leaders prior to him by the remedy he prescribed for Fabiola? Or was his decision in harmony with the teachings of the early Church fathers?
Be the first to react on this!
