Friday, October 20, 2023

Unusual theophoric names:

 The Hebrew Bible has several theophoric names. Names like Michael, Mi-ka-el (Who is like God?) which reference God are theophoric. Some of the names the Old Testament has are very unusual. Most of the names appear in the times of the Jewish kings.

One of the oddest is Ahijah.

Ahijah (Ahiyah) אֲחִיָּה means "brother of the LORD" or "my brother is Yah," which was the name of a lesser known prophet. This is odd considering this is before the incarnation when relatives of Christ were called "brother of the Lord."

A few instances where Ahijah appears:

And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah [אֲחִיָּה] the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two [were] alone in the field--1st Kings 11:29 

וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא, וְיָרָבְעָם יָצָא מִירוּשָׁלִָם; וַיִּמְצָא אֹתוֹ אֲחִיָּה הַשִּׁילֹנִי הַנָּבִיא בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְהוּא מִתְכַּסֶּה בְּשַׂלְמָה חֲדָשָׁה, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְבַדָּם, בַּשָּׂדֶה.-- First Kings 11:29

His family is mentioned, also with interesting names:

And Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the LORD'S priest in Shiloh, wearing an ephod. And the people knew not that Jonathan was gone.--1 Samuel 14:3 

וַאֲחִיָּה בֶן-אֲחִטוּב אֲחִי אִיכָבוֹד בֶּן-פִּינְחָס בֶּן-עֵלִי כֹּהֵן יְהוָה, בְּשִׁלוֹ--נֹשֵׂא אֵפוֹד; וְהָעָם לֹא יָדַע, כִּי הָלַךְ יוֹנָתָן. -- 1Samuel 14:3

The last verse is a bit absurd to read, when translating the names as:

And Yah's-my-brother, son of My-Brother-Is-Good(ness), brother of.... 

Sometimes Ahijah is spelled with a vav at the end--Ahiyahu:

And the LORD said unto Ahijahu [אֲחִיָּהוּ], Behold, the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son; for he [is] sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself [to be] another [woman].--1 Kings 14:5 

וַיהוָה אָמַר אֶל-אֲחִיָּהוּ, הִנֵּה אֵשֶׁת יָרָבְעָם בָּאָה לִדְרֹשׁ דָּבָר מֵעִמְּךָ אֶל-בְּנָהּ כִּי-חֹלֶה הוּא--כָּזֹה וְכָזֶה, תְּדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ; וִיהִי כְבֹאָהּ, וְהִיא מִתְנַכֵּרָה.

Another possible variant of the name is Ahi אֲחִי (brother of):

Ahi (אֲחִי) the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of the house of their fathers.--1 Chronicles 5:15 

 אֲחִי בֶּן-עַבְדִּיאֵל בֶּן-גּוּנִי, רֹאשׁ לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם. --1st Chronicles 5:15

In addition to this name, the time of the kings of Israel, there seems to be plenty of names with "brother" in it:

and Ahishar [אֲחִישָׁר] was over the household--1 Kings 4:6

Baana the son of Ahilud[אֲחִילוּד], in Taanach and Megiddo--1 Kings 4:12

Ahinadab [אֲחִינָדָב] the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz, in Naphtali; he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife--1 Kings 4:14-15

The book 'Dictionary of Deities, and Demons in the Bible' under the entry Brother states:

"In Hebrew theophoric personal names known from the Bible and from inscriptions (Zadok 1988:178-187), the most common elements, apart from 'el, 'god', and variants of yhwh are 'ab, 'father' (more than 30), 'ah , 'brother' (more than 25), and amm-, 'paternal uncle/kinsman' (more than 12). Note names such as Ahijah, 'Yah(u) is My (divine) Brother' (8 men. one woman?: STAMM 1980:111), Ahinadab 'My (divine) Brother is Generous' (one man), and Ahisamach, 'My (divine) Brother Has Helped' (one man), as well as Ahinoam, 'My (divine?) Brother is Gracious' (one man [Samarian ostraca], two women; STAMM 1980:133). Probably substitute names, such as Ahitub, 'My Brother is Goodness' (two men), also occur (STAMM 1939:279, 295; 1980:67, 69). In societies that rely heavily on the extended patriarchal family, as illustrated especially in the Books of Genesis and Ruth in the case of Israel, a brother or an uncle is commonly a primary authority figure, one whose protection is essential....As such the epithet 'brother' can be used of a deity, even if only in the popular or family piety reflected in personal names (ALBERTZ 1978). --'Dictionary of Deities, and Demons in the Bible' Entry for Brother, page 179

Bithiah בִּתְיָה

The daughter of a Pharoah is named "Bityah" which can be interpreted "Daughter of Yah":

And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these [are] the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.--1 Chronicles 4:18

וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הַיְהֻדִיָּה, יָלְדָה אֶת-יֶרֶד אֲבִי גְדוֹר וְאֶת-חֶבֶר אֲבִי שׂוֹכוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקוּתִיאֵל, אֲבִי זָנוֹחַ; וְאֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי בִּתְיָה בַת-פַּרְעֹה, אֲשֶׁר לָקַח, מָרֶד.

Bealiah בעליה

The name Bealiah בעליה resembles בעל ba'al which means either "husband", "lord", or the pagan god Ba'al.

Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Hariphite--1 Chronicles 12:6

אֶלְעוּזַי וִירִימוֹת וּבְעַלְיָה וּשְׁמַרְיָהוּ, וּשְׁפַטְיָהוּ החריפי --First Chronicles 12:6

Some have interpreted this as "Baal is Yah", whereas others seeing it less sacrilegious to interpret it as "Yah is master."

Benaiah בְּנָיָה 

"Son of Yah"

Benaiah [בְּנָיָה]the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day.--1 Chronicles 11:22

בְּנָיָה בֶן-יְהוֹיָדָע בֶּן-אִישׁ-חַיִל רַב-פְּעָלִים, מִן-קַבְצְאֵל; הוּא הִכָּה, אֵת שְׁנֵי אֲרִיאֵל מוֹאָב, וְהוּא יָרַד וְהִכָּה אֶת-הָאֲרִי בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר, בְּיוֹם הַשָּׁלֶג.-First Chronicles 11:22

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Partial list of Papal claims at the first 7 ecumenical councils

 As some have done before, a list of times in the 7 ecumenical council that the papacy asserted its claims:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.--Council of Ephesus, Acts of Session II

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time --Council of Ephesus, Acts of Session III

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. --Council of Chalcedon, Session III (spoken by the papal legates)

and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church. And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness' letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth. --Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo the Great

Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles....Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becometh the good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory government.--Constantinople III, Letter to Pope Agatho 

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. --Constantinople III, Letter of Pope Agatho to the Emperor, read at Constantinople III 

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc. --Nicea II, Session II, Letter of Pope Adrian to the Emperor and Empress

 

 

Sunday, October 1, 2023

EO priest argues in favor of Immaculate conception/existence

 Not my article. EO priest, Fr. Lev Gillet argues in favor of Immaculate conception/existence, citing even post schism fathers https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/09/23/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-2/

An excerpt:

First of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point. The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation – therefore – from the moment of her conception.1

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches – from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti“ of Roman theology.3

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti conceptionis.3

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.4

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time.5

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus).6

 I plan on showing the primary sources here when I find them.

St Jerome and the Deuterocanonicals

Often some Protestant will provide statements by St Jerome where he questions or rejects the deuterocanonical books,

See the following site on examples of when St Jerome calls the books scripture (they also address many Protestant arguments by the Church Fathers) and St Jerome many times quotes the books Protestants call apocrypha.

The examples are as follows:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2]—St  Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Daniel 13:55-59 aka Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)—St Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS."—St Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation."—St Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."[Wisdom 2:23] And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory." Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"—St Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

Here is another example of St Jerome calling the alleged “apocrypha” scripture: 

 Holy scripture says: ""a tale out of season is as music in mourning."" [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian

 

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Protestant anti-celibacy arguments and the Church Fathers

Since my old site has become defunct this month, this will be a largely a re-post of a poorly written article I made around 2004.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was hereditary and priests were expected to be married and have children, so their male child may become a priest. The New Testament has a different order; the ministerial priesthood is never passed on hereditarily, every man in order to be a priest must receive Holy Orders. Nowhere is it found in the New Testament that priests are REQUIRED to be married, but rather there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise that the Apostles were celibates or unmarried, though St Peter was married at once, and St Paul was likely married at once. Before going on further I will address common so-called verses that seem to require or expect priests in the New Testament to be married.

1 Timothy 3:2

First is the verse where people claim St Paul required Bishops to be married.

"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,"--1 Timothy 3:2

δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,--1 Timothy 3:2 (Greek found in Alexandrian and Byzantine texts)

Here is St Jerome concerning this issue showing that whether or not the man is married not the issue but whether or not he is a bigamist

What the true effect of baptism is, and what is the real grace conveyed by water hallowed in Christ, I will presently tell you; meantime I will deal with this argument as it deserves. 'An ill knot,' says the common proverb, 'requires but an ill wedge to split it.' The text quoted by the objector,"a bishop must be the husband of one wife,"[1 Timothy 3:2] admits of quite another explanation. The apostle came of the Jews and the primitive Christian church was gathered out of the remnants of Israel. Paul knew that the Law allowed men to have children by several wives, [Exodus 21:10] and was aware that the example of the patriarchs had made polygamy familiar to the people. Even the very priests might at their own discretion enjoy the same license. [Leviticus 21:7, 13] He gave commandment therefore that the priests of the church should not claim this liberty, that they should not take two wives or three together, but that they should each have but one wife at one time. Perhaps you may say that this explanation which I have given is disputed; in that case listen to another. You must not have a monopoly of bending the Law to suit your will instead of bending your will to suit the Law. Some by a strained interpretation say that wives are in this passage to be taken for churches and husbands for their bishops.--St Jerome Chapter 33*notice the issue is not required having a wife, but not having 2. 

St Paul according to some translations of this verse declares that the Apostles have a right to marry.

1 Corinthians 9:5 

numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas--Vulgate

"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"- Douai Rheims Version

"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" -New American Bible

“Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”--New American Bible 1970

"And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?" -New Jerusalem Bible

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" - King James Version

"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"- New King James

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" - New Internation Version

"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - New American Standard Bible

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - Revised Standard Version

Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? --Bible in Basic English

Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?-- American Revised Standard

have we not a right to take round a sister as wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Darby's English translation

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Noah Webster's

Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?--World English Bible

Have we not a right to take with us on our journeys a Christian sister as our wife, as the rest of the Apostles do--and the Lord's brothers and Peter?- Weymouth

have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?--Young's Literal

"For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?" - Tertullian's Rendering in "De Monogamy"

mh ouk ecomen exousian adelfhn gunaika periagein wV kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai khfaV--Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus**

μη ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του κυριου και κηφας -- The actual Greek text

**Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Hort and Westcott are all exactly the same, so the issue is not in the texts themselves 


The word usually translated as wife is the Greek word gunaika, which CAN mean wife, but it can also mean ANY woman who is betrothed, married or single. It is root word is gune, which is the word Christ even uses to address His Mother as woman. Sadly this issue was resolved nearly 1800 years ago by Tertullian prior to his heresy of Montanism, in his writing on Monogamy, in which he states he finds no evidence of the Apostles having been married, save St Peter, and even goes as far as to say they were all celibates, and even quotes 1 Corinthians 9:5, and defends that gunaika means woman in this instance and not wife, they were like the woman who helped Jesus. Furthermore the text of 9:5 shows it DID NOT MEAN WIVES, since it used the word "sister" rather than leaving it alone, yet MOST translation don't really consider this, they assume St Paul was relaying useless information by saying it was "a sister" or "believing sister," of course a believer would follow them, so why is "sister" necessary unless St Paul was trying to clarify the meaning of the word "gunaika."

"Peter alone do I find--through (the mention of) his "mother-in-law",--to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name--however, there is a name proper to wives--shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord." - "On Monogamy" Chapter 8 

The women that Tertullian refers to are:

And there were there many women [γυναικες -- geenaikes] beholding from afar, who did follow Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom was Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.--Matthew 27:55-56

ησαν δε εκει γυναικες πολλαι απο μακροθεν θεωρουσαι αιτινες  ηκολουθησαν τω ιησου απο  της γαλιλαιας διακονουσαι αυτω --Greek Matthew 27:55-56

 and,

Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.--Luke 8:1-3

St Jerome has his own commentary on the marital status of the Apostles, he says the same as Tertullian stated, but says it was possible the Apostles did in fact have wives, but had to separate from them once they were made Apostles of Christ. Then he further states that even if it were to be translated wives it must be understood that the wives were "related in spirit, not by wedlock." Nonetheless, St Jerome believes this verse not to infer the Apostles were married. 

In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord:[1] "Lo we have left all and followed thee," the Lord answered him,[2] "Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life." But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words[3] "Have we no right to lead about women or wives" (for gunh in Greek has both meanings) "even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord ?" let him add what is found in the Greek copies, "Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives ?" This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take gunaikas to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. - Book I Against Jovianius

St Augustine, likewise, interprets 1 Corinthians 9:5 use of the word gunaika as women:

"...for to this end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them, and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none of those things which pertain to the necessities of this life. Which thing blessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also the other Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power he afterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,” when he said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word, because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made this mistake; for that he neither says “a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor “to take” (as in marriage), but “to take about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by this ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman” not “wife.”.."--Treatise 137:5 

 1 Timothy 4:3

Some invoke 1 Timothy 4:3 “They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

This refers to groups the condemn marriage as evil and dishonorable, the Catholic Church does not do this, but incidentally there are groups of heretics throughout the ages that considered marriage wicked and did not do it, some of these Protestants hold to as being orthodox, such as the Catharis, which the false prophetess Ellen G White considered to be “true” (Ellen White, Great Controversy, Chapter 6, paragraph 1, p97).  When commenting on groups that DO condemn marriage Church Fathers have said:

“Such also as "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. [1 Timothy 4:3]  Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles.”—Tertullian Prescription Again Heretics Chapter 33  c. AD 200

“For this leads me to remark of Marcion's god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

Likewise St Jerome (400):

"We are no disciples of Marcion or of Manichæus, to detract from marriage. Nor are we deceived by the error of Tatian, the chief of the Encratites, into supposing all cohabitation unclean. For he condemns and reprobates not marriage only, but foods also which God has created for us to enjoy”--St Jerome Letter 48

St Augustine similarly identifies a group as being the fulfilment of St Paul's prophecy:

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"--Against Faustus the Manichaean 15:7  c.A.D. 400.

St Jerome further expounds:

A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.--St Jerome Letter 48

Another writing which did not deal so much with having celibate priests but whether or not married priests should be celibate:

“For we do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it. Nor do we prescribe sanctity as the rule, but only recommend it, observing it as a good, yea, even the better state, if each man uses it carefully according to his ability; but at the same time earnestly vindicating marriage, whenever hostile attacks are made against it is a polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

“he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives.”--- Ecclesiastical History Sozomen Book II, chapter 23

It demonstrates that that it is tradition for those who are ordained while being married are not to be required to not cohabit with their wives, but at the same time it calls it a tradition for celibates to be ordained and REMAIN celibates. Tertullian states celibacy is greater, and that we do not reject it, but we promote celibacy since it is regarded in scripture as greater. In Catholicism this high standard is expected of most priests, if a person cannot be celibate as a priest, he cannot become a priest, no one is forced to be a priest or forced to be celibate.  Celibacy is a vow to God and vows to God must be kept as scripture many times states.

Other scriptures in favor of celibacy:

“But the priest replied to David, "I have no ordinary bread on hand, only holy bread; if the men have abstained from women, you may eat some of that."”—1 Samuel 21:5

"Disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,  but only those to whom that is granted. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”—Matthew 19:12 

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do--1 Corinthians 7:8 NAB 

Then Peter said to him in reply, "We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?"--Matthew 19:27

Further reading: here, here, SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS 

Friday, September 15, 2023

Byzantine Polemics against Islam

 In the below from the The Annals of Niketas Choniates, notice an interesting, but somewhat familiar charge:

The listeners were so far from being intimidated by such threats that the archbishop of Thessaloniki, the most learned and eloquent Eustathios, who was filled with indignation by what was read and could not suffer the true God to be called a solid, the fabrication of a demoniacal mind, said, "My brains would be in my feet and I would be wholly unworthy of this garb," pointing to the mantle [mandyas]covering his shoulders, "were I to regard as true God the pederast who was as brutish as a camel and master and teacher of every abominable act." The bishops were nearly struck dumb by what they had heard, for he had shouted out these words, visibly shaken by pious zeal. Dumbfounded, the reader of the document returned to the emperor....He urgently appealed that a judgment be made between him and the archbishop of Thessaloniki, for he said that if he should be absolved of believing in a god who is a pederast and of distorting the faith, then a just punishment should be imposed upon him who belched out blasphemies against the anointed of the Lord.--The Annals of Niketas Choniates, Book 7. Page 122-123

Niketas Choniates lived from 1140-1213. This was said in context of disputes of theology in part caused by Emperor Manuel (8 April 1143 – 24 September 1180), who seemed to want to make transition from Islam easier for converts.

The claim is, however, that the Islamic deity is a deviant as opposed to the religious founder, perhaps because the deity accepted Muhammed and Aisha's relationship (and more).

Contrary to the modern charge that the objections to Islam's views on age of consent are a modern objection, this clearly shows that is not the case. Furthermore, this passage and more show the Byzantines at this point did not consider Muslims to worship the same deity because of what appears to be the charge that Muslims believed in a corporeal deity. This seems to correspond to the Islamic theology of "Mujassima" (corporealist) and "Mushabbiha" (anthropomorphist) like that of Ibn Karram (806-868). This would not become prevalent until after Ibn Taymiyya in the late 13th/early 14th century. There are a number of hadith that seem to show Allah has an actual body with two right hands, however, the fact Ibn Taymiyya was imprisoned for this shows it was not perhaps that prevalent, but then again, his funeral supposedly had around 200,000 attendees, which might show he had a big following.

Monday, September 4, 2023

Refuting One for Israel on Rabbinic Necromancy

 On Facebook on somewhere on YouTube the Protestant outreach to Jews called "One for Israel" produced as video called "Exposing Rabbinic Necromancy" among their claims was lighting fires for the dead is a pagan therefore sinful practice.

Unfortunately for One for Israel, the practice is Biblical:

They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor.--2 Chronicles 16:14 
In the course of time, at the end of the second year, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great pain. His people made no funeral fire in his honor, as they had for his predecessors.—2 Chronicles 21:19 
And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.-- 2 Chronicles 32:33 
You shall die in peace. And as spices were burned for your fathers, the former kings who were before you, so people shall burn spices for you and lament for you, saying, “Alas, lord!”’ For I have spoken the word, declares the LORD.--Jeremiah 34:5

Egyptians embalmed and buried their dead, so did Jews in the Bible. So what? See my articles on commonalities between Biblical Judaism and the surrounding pagans for why this reasoning is absurd. 

What is puzzling to me is how One for Israel doesn't know the Biblical prooftexts? Even Protestant commentators acknowledge it. 

Thursday, August 31, 2023

St Theophanes the Confessor and Petrine Primacy

St Theophanes the Confessor was a Byzantine monk/abbot, historian who lived 758/760 – 12 March 817/81 and served the Imperial court. In his Chronicles he does not shy away from his high view of the papacy in passing.

When he learned this, the pope convened the full numbers of the church and went to the grave of the chief of the apostles--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6121 (section 332) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 33

The Emperor was furious at the pope and at the defection of Italy. He armed a great expedition and, appointing as its commander Manes the general of the Kibyrhaiot theme, sent him against the pope and the Italians. But the irreverent fellow was put to shame when the expedition reached the Adriatic Sea. Thereupon Leo the enemy of God raged all the more, for he was under the control of his Arabic heart. He levied a third more tribute on the people of Sicily and Calabria. He also ordered the patrimony of the saints and princes of the apostles (who are honored in the elder Rome), which from ancient times had paid three and a half talents of gold to the churches, to pay them to the public account.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6221 (section 408) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 100

In the elder Rome Gregory, a holy and apostolic man who held the same throne as had the prince Peter, caused Rome, Italy, and all the west to secede from both political and ecclesiastical obedience to Leo and his Empire.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6224 (section 410) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 101

In this matter they opposed the holy scriptures in every respect. For if Peter the prince of the apostles killed Ananias and Sappheira solely for lying, and the great Paul said with a shout, “Those who do such things deserve death” (which he said about bodily sin alone), how would not those who release from the sword men who are absolutely impure in spirit and body and who worship demons be enemies of theirs? But the pious Emperor Michael cut down not a few of these heretics.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6304 (section 495) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 174-175

In one episode he records the heretical Emperor attempting to force Patriarch of Constantinople Makedonios to renounce the council of Chalcedon:

The emperor put pressure on Makedonios, bishop of Constantinople, to anathematize the Synod of Chalcedon as Helias of Jerusalem had done. But Makedonios said that without an ecumenical synod under the presidency of the bishop of Rome it was impossible to do this. As a result, the emperor, out of hostility to him, ordered that those who sought refuge in the Church be dragged away by force, while providing rights of asylum to the churches of heretics.--St Theophanes the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and the Near Eastern History, A.D. 284-813. 151, book pages 233.   United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1997. Found in Migne PG 108:360a

Hardly Byzantine flattery. 



Monday, June 19, 2023

Catholic legate articles on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Catholic Legate is a defunct site that had the occasional great article by apologists, this one has some dead links like Robert Sungenis (who rebranded himself when he wanted to become a geocentrist-movie maker):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090710030348/http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

They list a few writings contemporary to the NT where heos hou is used to mean "until" but where the action does not cease after the condition arrives.

"For like a most skillful pilot, the reason of our father Eleazar steered the ship of religion over the sea of the emotions, and though buffeted by the storms of the tyrant and overwhelmed by the mighty waves of tortures, in no way did he turn the rudder of religion [heõs hou] until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory." (4 Maccabees 7:1-3)

And Aseneth was left alone with the virgins, and she was listless and wept until sunset: she ate no bread and drank no water; and while all slept she alone was awake..... And she beat her breast repeatedly with her two hands and wept bitterly and groaned all night until the morning. 18. And in the morning Aseneth got up and looked and lo, the ashes underneath her were like mud because of her tears. 19. And again, Aseneth fell down on her face upon the ashes until sunset. 20. And so Aseneth did for seven days; and she tasted neither food nor drink--Joseph and Aseneth 10:1 

Other references

Luke 24:49

Acts 25:21

Apocalypse of Moses 31:3 

Friday, June 2, 2023

Commentary on John 19:33-37

 A continuation of my prior posts on John's 19's allusions to the Old Testament, especially Genesis.

See commentaries for: John 19:1, John 19:2, John 19:3, John 19:4, John 19:23

After Jesus died on the cross, John 19 says:

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead (τεθνηκότα), they did not break (κατέαξαν) his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced (ἔνυξεν) Jesus’ side (πλευρὰν) with a spear (λόγχῃ), bringing a sudden flow (ἐξῆλθεν) of blood and water--John 19:33-34

ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐλθόντες, ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα, οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέλη, ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. --John 19:33-34 (all major texts)

John then proceeds to indirectly tell us in v.35 that he personally saw these things happen. Some have taken it to mean most didn't see this (Theodore of Mopsuestia).

St John then provides explicit commentary for the piercing and the fact Jesus's legs were not broken in verses shortly after:

These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”--John 19:36-37

Ἐγένετο γὰρ ταῦτα ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, Ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται [ἀπ'] αὐτοῦ. καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρα γραφὴ λέγει· Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. --John 19:36-37 (ἀπ' is only found in the Byzantine Majority)

The quote of "Not one of his bones will be broken" "Ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται [ἀπ'] αὐτοῦ" quotes:

“It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones [לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ].--Exodus 12:46

 בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל, לֹא-תוֹצִיא מִן-הַבַּיִת מִן-הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה; וְעֶצֶם, לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ.--Exodus 12:46

 ἐν οἰκίᾳ μιᾷ βρωθήσεται καὶ οὐκ ἐξοίσετε ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῶν κρεῶν ἔξω καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ--Exodus 12:46 (LXX)

John 19:36 in the Byzantine majority includes the ἀπ' agreeing with it word-for-word. Note despite most translations of Exodus 12:46 not saying "of/in him" the words are there. "בוֹ" means "in him."

The quote “They will look on the one they have pierced” Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν" roughly quotes:

וְשָׁפַכְתִּי עַל-בֵּית דָּוִיד וְעַל יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם, רוּחַ חֵן וְתַחֲנוּנִים, וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ; וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו, כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל-הַיָּחִיד, וְהָמֵר עָלָיו, כְּהָמֵר עַל-הַבְּכוֹר--Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through [וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ;]; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.  --Zechariah 12:10

καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀγαπητὸν καὶ ὀδυνηθήσονται ὀδύνην ὡς ἐπὶ πρωτοτόκῳ--Zechariah 12:10 (LXX)

 Clearly, the present Greek text does not match. This issue will be shelved for now.

ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ-- Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side (πλευρὰν) with a spear (λόγχῃ), bringing a sudden flow (ἐξῆλθεν) of blood and water

The piercing in the side of the dead Christ, the new Adam, from which poured blood and water is understood to symbolize the formation of the Church, the bride of Christ just as Eve was formed from the side of the sleeping Adam who the LORD caused to fall asleep:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs [מִצַּלְעֹתָיו], and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib [הַצֵּלָע], which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man--Genesis 2:21-22

וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה. וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.  --Genesis 2:21-22 Masoretic Text

And God cast a trance upon Adam, and he slept (ὕπνωσεν), and he took one of his ribs (πλευρῶν) and filled up flesh in its place. And the rib (πλευράν) that he had taken from Adam the Lord God fashioned into a woman and brought her to Adam.--Genesis 2:21-22 NETS of LXX

καὶ ἐπέβαλεν ὁ θεὸς ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Αδαμ καὶ ὕπνωσεν καὶ ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσεν σάρκα ἀντ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν πλευράν ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Αδαμ εἰς γυναῖκα καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸν Αδαμ --Genesis 2:21-22 LXX

Christ's pierced side is called "πλευρὰν" by St John, and the same word is used in Genesis 2:22 in the LXX. The corresponding Hebrew is הַצֵּלָע. 

Many of the Church Fathers, especially the Latin, saw the symbolism of the formation of the church. This was encapsulated in the extraordinary magisterium of the Church at the General Council of Vienne taught: 

And that in this assumed nature the Word of God willed for the salvation of all not only to be nailed to the cross and to die on it, but also, having already breathed forth his spirit, permitted his side to be pierced by a lance, so that from the outflowing water and blood there might be formed the one, immaculate and holy virginal mother church, the bride of Christ, as from the side of the first man in his sleep Eve was fashioned as his wife, in this way, to the determinate figure of the first and old Adam, who according to the Apostle is a type of the one who was to come, the truth might correspond in our last Adam, that is to say in Christ.--Council of Vienne (1311-1313), Decree 1

One of the earliest Latin writing Christians (albeit one who left the church), Tertullian, in the early 3rd Century wrote:

If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties. From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep. For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam's sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living.--Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul: Chapter 43

St Cyril of Jerusalem linked it to Eve, as well as baptism and martyrdom. 

the water, perhaps, for him who judged Him; but for them that shouted against Him the blood. And again it is to be understood in another way; the blood for the Jews, and the water for the Christians: for upon them as plotters came the condemnation from the blood; but to you who now believe, the salvation which is by water. For nothing has been done without a meaning. Our fathers who have written comments have given another reason of this matter. For since in the Gospels the power of salutary Baptism is twofold, one which is granted by means of water to the illuminated, and a second to holy martyrs, in persecutions, through their own blood, there came out of that saving Side blood and water , to confirm the grace of the confession made for Christ, whether in baptism, or on occasions of martyrdom. There is another reason also for mentioning the Side. The woman, who was formed from the side, led the way to sin; but Jesus who came to bestow the grace of pardon on men and women alike, was pierced in the side for women, that He might undo the sin.--St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 13 

St Augustine sees a link with Noah and Adam with mention of the "side": 

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but "opened;" that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, (Genesis 6:16) whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, (Genesis 2:22) and was called Life, and the mother of all living. (Genesis 3:20) Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). --St Augustine, Tractate 120 (John 19:31-20:9)

The Noah link also has the contrasted stupor of Noah by wine and "sleep of death" of Christ. 

St Augustine said Eve was formed from Adam sleeping and the Church from the New Adam dying:

And as if you should say, When shall we rise? We are ordered now to sit: when will be our rising? When the Lord's was. Look unto Him, who went before you: for if you heed not Him, "it is lost labour for you to rise before dawn." When was He raised? When He had died. Hope therefore for your uplifting after your death: have hope in the resurrection of the dead, because He rose again and ascended. But where did He sleep? On the Cross. When He slept on the Cross, He bore a sign, yea, He fulfilled what had been signified in Adam: for when Adam was asleep, a rib was drawn from him and Eve was created; (Genesis 2:21-22) so also while the Lord slept on the Cross, His side was transfixed with a spear, and the Sacraments flowed forth, (John 19:34) whence the Church was born. For the Church the Lord's Bride was created from His side, as Eve was created from the side of Adam. But as she was made from his side no otherwise than while sleeping, so the Church was created from His side no otherwise than while dying.--St Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 127

St Ephraim the Syrian says the sword opened the door to paradise: 

Blessed be the Merciful One, who saw the weapon by Paradise, that closed the way to the Tree of Life; and came and took a Body which could suffer, that with the Door, that was in His side, He might open the way into Paradise.--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymn 6 

For more on the sword's significance see my other article on John 19:1. 

 St Cyril of Alexandria see the Eucharist and baptism in the blood and water:

...as they still had a faint suspicion that He might not be actually dead, they with a spear pierced His Side, which sent forth Blood, mingled with Water; God presenting us thereby with a type, as it were, and foreshadowing of the mystery of the Eucharist, and Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is of Christ, and Christ's institution; and the power of the mystery of the Eucharist grew up for us out of His Holy Flesh.--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12

 St John Chrysostom likewise links it to the two sacraments:

Yet, beloved, be not thou confounded, be not thou desponding; for the things which these men did from a wicked will, fought on the side of the truth. Since there was a prophecy, saying, from this circumstance, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." (Ver. 37; Zechariah 12:10) And not this only, but the deed then dared was a demonstration of the faith, to those who should afterwards disbelieve; as to Thomas, and those like him. With this too an ineffable mystery was accomplished. For "there came forth water and blood." Not without a purpose, or by chance, did those founts come forth, but because by means of these two together the Church consists. And the initiated know it, being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh. Hence the Mysteries take their beginning; that when you approach to that awful cup, you may so approach, as drinking from the very side. --St John Chrysostom, Homily 85 on the Gospel of John

Living Water Flows

It is also noteworthy that John 19:34's flow of water evokes imagery of Christ's own words: 

But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.--John 4:14

He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified--John 7:38

Water was a common motif in John's gospel, mentioned frequently: John 1 (baptism), 2 (water into wine), 3 (new birth and baptism), 4 (baptism, well) etc. This point was not missed in the early church:

It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced "He shed thereout blood and water." This has a mystical meaning. For Himself had said, "Out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water." But He shed forth blood also, of which the Jews sought that it might be upon themselves and upon their children. He shed forth water, therefore, which might wash believers; He shed forth blood also which might condemn unbelievers.--Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed

In John 7:38 He seems to speak of the Holy Spirit as living water, the shedding of water after His death then might also indicate that now Christ being glorified/crucified and dead, He can now send out the Spirit, as He did in John 20:22 giving the Spirit to the Apostles to forgive sins, then in Acts 1 where the baptism of the Spirit came (called the sacrament of Confirmation or Chrismation).

 John later said:

Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of its street. On either side of the river grew the tree of life that produces fruit twelve times a year, once each month; the leaves of the trees serve as medicine for the nations...The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water--Revelation 22:1-2, 17

Revelation 22 is making allusions to Ezekiel 47.

Going back to the allusion in John 7:38, it's not a quote of any extant verse of the Old Testament, however, its generally taken as a reference to verses like Isaiah 12 and Ezekiel 47. If Ezekiel 47 is in mind, then it's another allusion by Christ to the temple being Himself, and/or a believer also becoming a temple.

Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and there! I saw water flowing out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east. The water flowed out toward the right side of the temple to the south of the altar--Ezekiel 47:1

Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for GOD the LORD is my strength and song; and He is become my salvation.' Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.--Isaiah 12:2-3

In fact, in the Roman Rite during the Eastertide, there is the famous hymn saying as much:

I saw water flowing out of the Temple, from its right side, Alleluia:  And all to whom this water came were saved, And they shall say: Alleluia, Alleluia. Give thanks to the Lord for he is good for the world [is] in his mercy. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. I saw water flowing out of the Temple, from its right side, Alleluia: And all to whom this water came were saved, And they shall say: Alleluia, Alleluia.--Vidi aquam

Three that testify

At the Cross Christ gave up the spirit, and shed water and blood, St John mentions all three in his first epistle: 

Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.--1 John 5:5-8 

Lapide's many comments

Cornelius Lapide's commentary reads:

Ver. 33.—But when they came to Jesus (evidently to break His legs. Euthymius says, “They came to Him last, as wishing to please the Jews by treating Him with greater insult) and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs. He did not wish His legs to be broken, for He wished to rise again with an unmutilated body.” As Lactantius says (iv. 26), “His body is taken down from the cross entire, and carefully laid in the tomb, lest by the loss of any limb it might be rendered less seemly for resurrection.” 

Instead, then, of His legs being broken, His side was pierced with the spear. This was after He was dead, not while He was alive as some have thought. This error was condemned in the Council of Vienne. For as Christ, while alive, gave up His whole Body for us, so did He in His death wish to give us His heart. For this it was that was pierced by the spear, and blood and water flowed forth from it, so that He gave Himself entirely to us. 

You will say that Christ was already dead, and that therefore He merited nothing by this piercing of His heart. But I reply that when alive He knew this wound would be inflicted, and that He offered it to the Father for us, and thus merited and effected our salvation. Thou wilt say next, We see that blood flows from the body of a slain person, if the murderer is present. This then is a natural effect. I say that it is not natural, but very nearly miraculous; to point out and confound the murderer. And much more was it miraculous in the case of Christ, as I will presently show. 

Ver. 34.—But one of the soldiers opened His side. As somewhat doubting, says S. Cyril, whether He were really dead; and if He were not, to hasten His death. For it was the duty of these soldiers to carry out the sentence, and to see that criminals were not taken away before it was certain that they were dead. S. Chrysostom adds, “To please the Jews, they lay open His side and insult Him when dead. 0 most evil and most atrocious wish.” Some suppose that this soldier was the centurion, who cried out “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew xxvii. 54.) But it is not likely that he who so cried out would dare to commit such an act. Nazianzen in his “Christus Patiens” suggests that he was blind, and that he then regained his sight. Many stories on this matter were collected by Barradius, which Baronius rejects as apocryphal. Here note—1. That the soldier was one of the guuard who brake the legs of the two malefactors, and would have broken Christ’s also had he been alive. But they pierced His side, to show that He was dead, and this was why they brake not His legs. 2. Some say it was a spear, others a sword which was used. 3. The Vulgate seems to have read, ήνοιξε, but the Greek is ένυξε. 4. This wound was so large that a hand could have been thrust into it. See John xx. 27. 5. It was on the right side, as represented by painters. Some think it was so foretold by Ezekiel xvii. 2.  S. Francis also received his wound on the right side. See S. Bonaventura, Ribadeaeira, &c. 6. Christ therefore received six wounds. 7. This wound seems to have pierced through both sides, as Prudentius says in several passages. As, e.g., 

As struck the cruel spear through either side, Water and Blood poured forth in mingled tide: For victory this, and that to cleanse applied.  

De Pass. Christi [apud Diptych, num. xlii.]; Peristeph. Hymn viii. [151; and Cathomer, Hymn ix. [85]; [Pseudo]-Cyprian also (de Pass.) says the same. Theophylact speaks of this wound in the plural number, Prudentius seems to imply that the larger wound emitted blood, and the smaller wound on the left side water. But this wound on the left slide was so small as not to be taken into account. Hence there were only five wounds.  S. Bridget’s Revel. iv. 40, vii. 15, and ii. 21, are also referred to. 

And forthwith came thereout blood and water. Both together (not separately, as Nonnus paraphrases), but yet not mixed, but so that they could be distinguished from each other. But this could not be the case naturally, because the blood of a dead body congeals, and pure blood cannot flow from it. And this was pure blood, not serum, as Innoc. III. lays it down (Lib. iii. Decret. tit. 41, de Celebr. Miss. cap. viii.) Calvin is therefore wrong in saying that water is contained in the pericardium. Therefore this flowing forth of blood and water was miraculous, as S. Ambrose on Luke xxiii., Euthymius, and Theophylact say. The latter remarks, “The contumely is changed into a miracle, and wonderful it was that blood flowed forth from a dead body. But a caviller might say that some vital force might probably remain in the body. But the water which flowed forth puts the matter beyond all dispute.” He says afterwards, “Confounded be the Armenians, who in the Mysteries mix not water with the wine. For, as it seems, they do not believe that water flowed forth from the side (which would be more wonderful), but blood only. And in this passage they do away with a mighty miracle. The blood then is the symbol of a crucified man, but the water of one who is above man, that is, of God.” See Adam Coutzen and Francis Lucas on this passage. 

But this took place by way of mystery. But what mystery? (1.) To show the reality of Christ’s human nature. See 1 John v. 7. (2.) To signify that the Church was formed as the Spouse of Christ out of the side of the second Adam dying on the Cross. Symbolically, i.e. and figuratively, as meaning that the Church was purchased, founded, and sanctified by the Blood of Christ. As S. Ambrose (on Luke xxiii.) says, “Life flowed forth from that dead body. For water and blood flowed forth, the one to cleanse, the other to redeem;” and as S. Cyril and Chrysostom say, that the water signifies baptism, which is the first beginning, of the Church and the other sacraments, and the blood represents the Eucharist, which is the end and completion of the sacraments, to which they all refer as to their beginning and their end. Whence S. Augustine says (in loc.), that all sacraments flowed forth from the side of Christ, in mystery, as I said. His words are, “It is not said that he ‘struck’ or ‘wounded,’ but that he ‘opened’ the side of Christ, that the door of life might thus, as it were, be opened, from whence the sacraments of the Church flowed forth, without which there is no entrance to true life.” And S. Chrysostom. “Because the sacred mysteries take their rise from thence, when thou approachest the awful Chalice, thou shouldest approach it as if thou wert about to drink from the very side of Christ;” and the reason is, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say, “The Church exists and consists by means of the sacraments.” For it is born by Baptism, strengthened by Confirmation, fed and perfected by the Eucharist, healed by Penance, fortified by Extreme Unction, governed by Holy Orders, and continued and extended by Matrimony. 

As a symbol of this, Cyprian and others say that water must be mixed with the wine in the consecration of the Chalice. 

Tropologically. Tertullian says (de Baptismo), that Christ by this effusion of Blood and Water indicated the two kinds of Baptism, by water and by martyrdom. 

Anagogically. This opening of Christ’s side shadowed forth that heaven, which had been closed for 4000 years, was opened by His death. Ruffinus adds, In Expos. Symb., “He poured forth water to cleanse believers, and blood to condemn unbelievers.” See Suarez, Par. iii. Quæst. li Disput. xli. § 1, where, however, he thinks that only the left side of Christ was pierced, and that the blood first ran forth, and afterwards the water, both which are equally probable. 

Ver. 35.—And he that saw it bare record. Probably John himself, who speaks of himself unassumingly in the third person. 

Ver. 36.—For these things where done that the scripture should be fulfilled (allegorically, not literally), A bone of Him shall not be broken. A bone, i.e., of the Paschal Lamb (Ex. xii. 46). The literal reason was, that they had to eat it in haste, and had not time to break the bones and extract the marrow. The allegorical reason was, because that lamb was a type of Christ, and God willed that a bone of Him should not be broken, in order that His sacred Body, which was to rise again, should remain complete in every limb. Symbolically, it signified—(1.) That the Godhead of Christ, which was (as it were) the bone which supported His Body, remained entire and uninjured in His Passion (see Rupertus on Ex. xii.) 

(2.) That the strength and vigour of Christ as man (of which the bones were a symbol) were not diminished, but rather increased, by His Passion. For His mind was steadfastly fixed on God, and His will remained firmly and constantly united to the Divine Will. So the Martyr Hippolytus says. See Theodoret, Dialog. iii. 

Allegorically, This signifies that the Holy Apostles, who were the bones of the Church, were not to be broken. (See, S. Augustine on Ps. xxxiv.; S. Jerome on Ps. xxi.; and S. Gregory, Mor. xxiv. 30.) 

And S. Hilary, on Ps. xl., says, the bones of Christ were not broken, because the Church, which was formed of His bones, ought not to be weakened by their being broken. 

Tropologically. See S. Bernard (Serm. de cute, &c. animæ). He says that the skin is good thoughts, the flesh pious affections, the bones holy intentions, which, even when godly thoughts and affections fail, must still be kept unbroken and strong: or else a man bursts asunder, and falls to pieces. 

Ver. 37.—And again another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. See Zech. xii. 10. 

Heresy of Christ being alive when pierced with the sword

The Council of Vienne also condemned anyone who said Christ was not dead when the soldier pierced his side:

...when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe. 

We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. --Council of Vienne (1311-1313), Decree 1