Remarriage in Early Christianity argues against the opinion of some scholars that early Christians allowed remarriage following divorce. Instead, Das argues that Christian writers univocally rejected the practice, allowing remarriage only if the spouse had died. He argues that the teaching against remarriage was deeply countercultural in its ancient context.
In four long chapters, Das analyses the New Testament texts involved (1 Cor 7:10-11; Mark 10:11-12; Matt 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18) and argues that Jesus forbade both divorce and remarriage. He does so in conversation with foundationalist interpreters who have found more leeway in Jesus’s teachings, making room for contemporary believers to divorce and/or remarry. Das rejects such readings, finding instead a unified, straightforward teaching against divorce and remarriage, one that was affirmed by later Christian authors.
For readers who are interested in the detailed analysis and arguments over these biblical texts, Das provides a good discussion of the exegetical issues involved (for Mark and Luke, see chapter 2; Matthew, chapters 3 and 4; Paul, chapter 5). Although I did not agree with him at every turn, on the whole, he shows sound exegetical judgement and points out some of the unlikely moves interpreters have made to find support in Jesus’s teachings for remarriage after divorce.
But Das’ exploration of the subject of remarriage exists within a narrow conversation between foundationalist interpreters. Although he does not self-identify as foundationalist (a category he discusses in the conclusion), he shares with this framework the assumption that one can determine a single, original meaning of Scripture; the expectation that the New Testament writings express a unified opinion; and the tendency to minimise cultural differences in ancient and modern constructions of sex and marriage, making the teaching easier to apply in the present.
In my view, the New Testament texts are more varied – and stranger – than Das lets on. The target of criticism in these verses is primarily remarriage, not divorce. Paul teaches the Corinthians not to divorce, but adds that if divorce occurs, one should remain unmarried (1 Cor. 7:10–11). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus agrees that a certificate of divorce was allowed by Moses, but points to another (prior) part of Scripture (‘the two shall become one flesh’, Gen. 2:24) that supports remaining married. This teaching is followed by something new – those who divorce should not remarry – which reinforces the impression that divorce, though not preferred, is still licit. Luke eliminates the teaching against divorce entirely and includes only a single brief statement against remarriage, crafting a message that prohibits remarriage following divorce.
An interesting historical question, then, is why this opposition to remarriage? The teaching is not what modern readers expect, and, as Das points out, would have seemed unusual at the time. Two elements of the social context can help us better understand this language, although neither element makes the verses easier to apply in the present.
First, practices of divorce and remarriage were widely available but common only among elites, who would do so to create strategic alliances between families. Das argues that remarriage was widespread, but evidence of the practice comes largely from sources by and about the upper class. Augustus’ legislation encouraging remarriage also targeted the elites: it allowed the married to receive a large bequest from someone who was not a direct relative, something only likely among the wealthy. Poorer women might have divorced due to mistreatment (see e.g. BGU 4.1105), but remarriage required enough social standing to appear a desirable partner.
The first readers of these New Testament writings would have interpreted them in light of existing social hierarchies. Few of those early readers were themselves very wealthy. To many readers, the teaching likely signalled a critique of the ruling elites. John the Baptist famously criticised Herod for divorcing and remarrying, so there was some precedent for the view. Jesus may have applied the idea more broadly.
Second, the teachings against remarriage should be considered in light of the virtue of sexual self-control, which was widespread in ancient writings of the period. Limitation of sexual desire was widely praised, including Das’ evidence of acclaim for the univira, a woman married only once. Das understands this evidence as conflicting with the evidence for remarriage and sees it as a minority report. More likely, it fits a cultural pattern that praised both sexual restraint and fidelity (as evidence of self-control) and marriage (as the foundation of a strong civic order).
Paul pursues self-control to its logical extreme, arguing that it is better to remain unmarried (and thus not to have sex at all) and encouraging the restriction of sexual desire even within marriage (1 Cor. 7:1–9). Similarly, in Matthew 5, the teaching not to divorce and remarry immediately follows Jesus’s expansion of ‘adultery’ to prohibit even looking at a woman with lust (Matt. 5:28). Luke’s Jesus teaches that those who are worthy of a place in the resurrection ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’ (Luke 10:35). The advice not to remarry likely made sense to the hearers of these texts because they saw inherent value in limiting sexual passion.
Do these teachings apply to Christians today? Usually, only if we pick a few, ignoring others that were essential at the time. Early Christians would have affirmed the ideas not to divorce and not to have sex before marriage, which are common today. But these would not have made any sense to them without also including the preference not to marry at all, and that even the married should limit sexual desire. These practices were embraced by extant writers of the next three centuries, all of whom saw warrant for them in the New Testament. A better understanding of the social history does not yield a single answer regarding what Christians should do in the present, but it does shed light on how early readers may have apprehended them.
