Published by Eerdmans on June 27, 2024
Genres: Academic, Non-Fiction
Buy on Amazon
Goodreads
What did early Christians believe about remarriage after divorce?
The New Testament sends mixed messages about divorce. Jesus forbids it in Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels, but he seems to make an exception for victims of infidelity in Matthew’s Gospel. Paul permits divorce in 1 Corinthians when an unbeliever initiates it. Yet other Pauline passages imply that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.
A. Andrew Das confronts this dissonance in Remarriage in Early Christianity. Challenging scholarly consensus, Das argues that early Christians did not approve of remarriage after divorce. His argument—covering contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and ante-Nicene interpretation—reveals greater consistency in early Christianity than is often assumed. Das pays special attention to the Greek words used in contemporary bills of divorce and in the New Testament, offering much-needed clarity on hotly contested concepts like porneia.
At once sensitive and objective, Das finds an exegetically sound answer to the question of remarriage among early Christians. This bold study will challenge scholars and enlighten any Christian concerned with what Scripture has to say on this perennially relevant topic.
The issue of remarriage in Christianity has often been a contentious one, usually revolving around the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that (in the King James), “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Other passages in both the Gospels and Epistles muddy the waters further with there being a general lack of clarity on the subject. Today, there are generally three views on the matter: 1) remarriage is never appropriate (see the Roman Catholic Church and evangelicals like John Piper), 2) remarriage is allowed if the divorce was “biblical,” usually referring to instances of adultery (this has been the mainstream evangelical position), or 3) remarriage is allowed if the marriage covenant has been broken in any way (see individuals like Tim Keller or, surprisingly, Wayne Grudem). Regardless of position and reasoning, divorce and remarriage has often carried some stigma with it, though it is lessening in current culture.
Into this conversation comes Dr. A. Andrew Das, professor of religious studies at Elmhurst University. Das’s focus is not on the present, but the past. How did the first generations of Christians understand the words of Scripture when it came to divorce and remarriage? What might be instructive about their understanding for our understanding today? Remarriage in the Early Church is a thorough and comprehensive study of what the early church believed and practiced regarding divorce and remarriage.
Das divides his thesis into six chapters. First, he traces the history of the acceptance of divorce and remarriage in the ancient world. Das rightfully shows that both divorce and remarriage were common in the ancient world, among both Jews and Gentiles. There was an ideal of only ever having one spouse, but remarriage was often considered a necessity—particularly if the woman was of child-bearing age. His conclusion is that while remarriage was common, it would not be unprecedented for early Christians to uphold the one-spouse ideal.
The second chapter strives to think about how Jesus was remembered in these early Christian communities, reconstructing what Das calls a “minimal” or “historic” Jesus behind the biblical text. Das sees the Gospels as “remembrances” of what Jesus taught, hence why there is some lack of clarity to Jesus’s words. He tackles the five passages where Jesus speaks on remarriage (1 Cor. 7:10-11; Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). Remarriage in the Early Church sees three of these passages as preventing remarriage while only the Matthean passages allowing for remarriage in the instance of adultery.
The so-called “Matthean exceptions” is where Das turns to in chapter three. For those that have come to the position that remarriage is allowed, a common way of interpreting the passages in Matthew is to say that the passage is not often well-translated. In the KJV Jesus says that a man who divorces his wife “causeth her to commit adultery.” The ESV, NASB, NLT, and RSV all follow the same wording. But the NIV says “makes her the victim of adultery.” This is currently a minority Bible translation, but an increasing common way of interpreting the passage among biblical scholars. Das argues for the majority reading, using John 8 to say that if the phrase could mean “victim of adultery” it would be used there. Overall, I really don’t find Das’s argument that compelling here. We simply don’t know enough about the context of John 8 and whether or not the woman was a willing participant to know whether or not that scenario could relate to this more general claim that is not about adultery, but about divorce. Remarriage in the Early Church spends a large amount of time trying to debunk the exception and while Das makes the argument well, I don’t find myself convinced. In his conclusion, he says “Matthew departs from the historical Jesus.” That’s a bold statement that says to me that Matthew’s exception cannot be explained away.
The fifth chapter deals with the apostle Paul on remarriage. Chapter six on the early church. I shan’t summarize them here as this review has gone on long enough. Suffice it to say that Das examines five possibilities for remarriage in Paul and shuts each of them down and presents a strong case that remarriage was frowned upon in the early church.
In the end, Remarriage in the Early Church doesn’t convince me of its position. However, it is the most comprehensive and substantive argument against remarriage that I have seen. And had Das argued that a singular marriage was the biblical ideal, rather than a biblical imperative, I would have found myself agreeing with him. Given the importance of marriage to the family and to the wider culture, Remarriage in the Early Church is a crucial part of a needed discussion. Christians should not be blasé about divorce and remarriage simply because the larger culture is. Das upholds a high view of marriage that sees it as an eternal spiritual bond. Where Das fails is to ascertain if all marriages are ordained of God and have that bond.