What do you think?
Rate this book
Remarriage in Early Christianity
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 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.
517 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 27, 2024
6 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 3, 2024
Enthralling. Authoritative. Upends Instone-Brewer (the presumed champion of the Remarriage Permitted view) in every way possible–both implicitly and sometimes explicitly in the footnotes. Highly technical, but for pastors and scholars wanting to dive deep into an incredibly complex question about one of the most sensitive topics in the church, this is the book.
On Twitter (X.com), Tom Schreiner said this book may just be a game changer. He was entirely correct and the evangelical church in particular must reckon with it.
On Twitter (X.com), Tom Schreiner said this book may just be a game changer. He was entirely correct and the evangelical church in particular must reckon with it.
May 12, 2025
Extensive treatment of remarriage in Scripture and historical interpretation. Certainly, a bit hard to read at points (but not horrible) but very well done. He concludes that remarriage is never permissible until the death of a spouse. I'm still up in the air, but, at the least, his arguments ought to be considered.
November 28, 2024
Summary: A study of both NT texts and early church fathers offers no basis for remarriage after divorce.
Not unlike the contemporary West, where divorce is often followed by remarriage, both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture permitted writs of divorce, after which both parties were free to remarry. The only exception was in the early imperial period, that upheld the ideal of the univira, the woman who never remarried, even after the death of her husband. This, however did not bar divorce or remarriage.
A. Andrew Das asserts that the early Christians stood in marked contrast to these cultural norms, permitting divorce only in the case of unchaste behavior, or a divorce initiated by an unbelieving spouse, and remarriage in no case. Das begins with the relevant gospel texts. He notes the categorical ban of divorce and remarriage in Mark and Luke, affirming God’s intention for marriage until death parts husband and wife. Das then does a more detailed study of the Matthean passages, which seem to allow for some form of exception. He considered the various possible interpretations. On the basis of the textual grammar, he concludes that Jesus, in Matthew permits divorce in the case of sexual sin, but this permission does not extend to remarriage, even for the innocent party. Such remarriage, while the spouse lived, would constitute adultery
Turning to the relevant material in 1 Corinthians 7, he maintains that Paul affirmed marriage and marital relations, limiting abstinence. He addresses widows and widowers, encouraging singleness but permitting marriage. He then turns to divorce, affirming the Lord’s command for believers, urging Christian spouses in mixed marriages to remain, unless the unbelieving spouse initiates divorce. No remarriage is permitted. Paul urges the advantages of singleness, but affirms the propriety of betrothed coupes to marry. Again, Das finds no basis for the remarriage of the divorced.
But was this how the early Christians read these passages? Surveying the Ante-Nicene fathers, he shows them to be unanimous. The only matter on which they differed was whether widows and widowers may remarry. Some prohibited even this. All this argues strongly that they would not even countenance the remarriage of the divorced. And there is no evidence that they went beyond Matthew and Paul regarding the circumstances in which divorce was permitted, nor that the “innocent” party could remarry.
I’ve summarized in a few paragraphs Das’s careful textual work, with ample documentation. Understandably, this is work may evoke strong emotions, which the author acknowledges. His approach is one that focuses on the evidence of the biblical texts and first centuries of Christian interpretation. He acknowledges interpreters as diverse as Craig Keener and David Instone-Brewer who adopt more expansive interpretations of the exceptions. He addresses those who have remarried as being in actual marriages and that adultery is not the unforgiveable sin. Das recognizes that scholars may try to mitigate the understanding he has argued. He simply hopes that when they do so, they will reckon with the early Christian witness.
Admittedly, Das promotes an unpopular position in this book. Perhaps it was beyond his remit, but I would have liked him to address the “hardness of heart” behind the OT permission to divorce. He does not address the issue of violence in marriages. Nor does he address why it is better for the widowed to marry rather than burn but why burning is preferable to the adultery of remarriage for the divorced.
That said, he underscores the high call of marriage for Christians. In turn, this emphasizes the high need for God’s empowering grace in the lives of couples. The evidence from of the early church calls into question the ease with which we accept divorce and remarriage. I hope that this study results not only in scholarly discussions but also in discussions among pastor-theologians. They are the ones who must consider the implications of this evidence for the church’s life and witness.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
Not unlike the contemporary West, where divorce is often followed by remarriage, both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture permitted writs of divorce, after which both parties were free to remarry. The only exception was in the early imperial period, that upheld the ideal of the univira, the woman who never remarried, even after the death of her husband. This, however did not bar divorce or remarriage.
A. Andrew Das asserts that the early Christians stood in marked contrast to these cultural norms, permitting divorce only in the case of unchaste behavior, or a divorce initiated by an unbelieving spouse, and remarriage in no case. Das begins with the relevant gospel texts. He notes the categorical ban of divorce and remarriage in Mark and Luke, affirming God’s intention for marriage until death parts husband and wife. Das then does a more detailed study of the Matthean passages, which seem to allow for some form of exception. He considered the various possible interpretations. On the basis of the textual grammar, he concludes that Jesus, in Matthew permits divorce in the case of sexual sin, but this permission does not extend to remarriage, even for the innocent party. Such remarriage, while the spouse lived, would constitute adultery
Turning to the relevant material in 1 Corinthians 7, he maintains that Paul affirmed marriage and marital relations, limiting abstinence. He addresses widows and widowers, encouraging singleness but permitting marriage. He then turns to divorce, affirming the Lord’s command for believers, urging Christian spouses in mixed marriages to remain, unless the unbelieving spouse initiates divorce. No remarriage is permitted. Paul urges the advantages of singleness, but affirms the propriety of betrothed coupes to marry. Again, Das finds no basis for the remarriage of the divorced.
But was this how the early Christians read these passages? Surveying the Ante-Nicene fathers, he shows them to be unanimous. The only matter on which they differed was whether widows and widowers may remarry. Some prohibited even this. All this argues strongly that they would not even countenance the remarriage of the divorced. And there is no evidence that they went beyond Matthew and Paul regarding the circumstances in which divorce was permitted, nor that the “innocent” party could remarry.
I’ve summarized in a few paragraphs Das’s careful textual work, with ample documentation. Understandably, this is work may evoke strong emotions, which the author acknowledges. His approach is one that focuses on the evidence of the biblical texts and first centuries of Christian interpretation. He acknowledges interpreters as diverse as Craig Keener and David Instone-Brewer who adopt more expansive interpretations of the exceptions. He addresses those who have remarried as being in actual marriages and that adultery is not the unforgiveable sin. Das recognizes that scholars may try to mitigate the understanding he has argued. He simply hopes that when they do so, they will reckon with the early Christian witness.
Admittedly, Das promotes an unpopular position in this book. Perhaps it was beyond his remit, but I would have liked him to address the “hardness of heart” behind the OT permission to divorce. He does not address the issue of violence in marriages. Nor does he address why it is better for the widowed to marry rather than burn but why burning is preferable to the adultery of remarriage for the divorced.
That said, he underscores the high call of marriage for Christians. In turn, this emphasizes the high need for God’s empowering grace in the lives of couples. The evidence from of the early church calls into question the ease with which we accept divorce and remarriage. I hope that this study results not only in scholarly discussions but also in discussions among pastor-theologians. They are the ones who must consider the implications of this evidence for the church’s life and witness.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
September 10, 2025
Andrew Das's arguments for a no remarriage interpretation of the NT passages and his survey of the early church fathers' position are a force to contend with. I have particularly appreciated his thorough scholarship on the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman context, which nuances the findings of Instone-Brewer, as well as his arguments for (what I agree is) the right understanding of "porneia." I am glad he did not take the "easy route" of arguing that "porneia" is limited to the betrothal period but debunks it, even if it would not necessarily help his case.
"Remarriage in Early Christianity" would have persuaded me but for three main reasons:
(1) When it comes to the hotly contested Matthew 19:9 passage, Das expends a great deal of effort proving that the exception clause only modifies the divorce part. But even if we should grant that to be the case, the logic of the text remains inescapable: the one who remarries, should his divorce NOT be on grounds of sexual immorality, commits adultery, which would not be the case if he remarries when his divorce IS on grounds of sexual immorality. Remarriage is not valid directly on grounds of sexual immorality, remarriage is valid based on whether the divorce—not the remarriage—was rightly qualified or not by the exception clause. In other words, Das has not provided a sufficiently robust alternative logic to Matthew 19:9 than what seems to be its most natural reading. Even Augustine struggled with the inevitable logic and was only able to escape it by (mis-)interpreting the exception clause as speaking of degrees of adultery (the innocent spouse who remarries is "less" guilty; see Augustine, De adulterinis coniungiis 1.9). Moreover, Das's argument that divorce alone, even without remarriage, is adultery is improbable and not even adopted by most early church fathers.
(2) Although Das has successfully demonstrated, by his survey, that the majority (if not all) of the "published" ante-Nicene church fathers did not allow remarriage even when the divorce was on grounds of sexual immorality, his quotes of said church fathers had an unintended effect: they made me question their conclusion on this matter, seeing that several of them not only permitted divorce but commanded it when sexual immorality was involved, and seeing that several of them also forbid remarriage for the widows, which is clearly allowed in Scripture. Das attempts to counter the common accusation of asceticism, saying the early church fathers still grounded their asceticism in Christ's teaching, therefore fall flat in light of the evidence he himself presented.
(3) Das's choice to stop at the ante-Nicene fathers is telling, likely because he knows that later fathers (esp. Ambrosiaster) and Christian emperors have continued with the permission to remarry after a valid divorce until the 11th century (cf. Herman Bavinck, "Reformed Ethics," pp. 175–76). Moreover, that the "published" ante-Nicene fathers all held the same view does not mean the church at large did (as evidenced by Augustine's need to address objections to his view), nor that they held their view with as much severity as they seem in his quotes (cf. Chemnitz, "Examination on the Council of Trent," vol. 2, pp. 750–55). While Das's book may seem like a recovery of the early church's view for the modern readers, the kind of work he did had already been done by the Reformers and Puritans who unanimously rejected that view. I especially commend Chemnitz's "Examination on the Council of Trent," Vol. 2, Topic 10, Sections V–VI; John Owen's treatise, "On Remarriage after Divorce" (https://www.berbc.org/johnowenremarraige) ; and Herman Bavinck's "Reformed Ethics," pp. 171–213, for a strong rebuttal by theologians familiar with the early church fathers.
Failure to persuade me aside, Das has made a solid contribution to the debate by doing his own rigorous exegesis and research and will need to be addressed by all future scholars looking to elucidate this most thorny and perennial issue. This is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to do their own research on the subject, whether for academic, pastoral, or personal reasons.
"Remarriage in Early Christianity" would have persuaded me but for three main reasons:
(1) When it comes to the hotly contested Matthew 19:9 passage, Das expends a great deal of effort proving that the exception clause only modifies the divorce part. But even if we should grant that to be the case, the logic of the text remains inescapable: the one who remarries, should his divorce NOT be on grounds of sexual immorality, commits adultery, which would not be the case if he remarries when his divorce IS on grounds of sexual immorality. Remarriage is not valid directly on grounds of sexual immorality, remarriage is valid based on whether the divorce—not the remarriage—was rightly qualified or not by the exception clause. In other words, Das has not provided a sufficiently robust alternative logic to Matthew 19:9 than what seems to be its most natural reading. Even Augustine struggled with the inevitable logic and was only able to escape it by (mis-)interpreting the exception clause as speaking of degrees of adultery (the innocent spouse who remarries is "less" guilty; see Augustine, De adulterinis coniungiis 1.9). Moreover, Das's argument that divorce alone, even without remarriage, is adultery is improbable and not even adopted by most early church fathers.
(2) Although Das has successfully demonstrated, by his survey, that the majority (if not all) of the "published" ante-Nicene church fathers did not allow remarriage even when the divorce was on grounds of sexual immorality, his quotes of said church fathers had an unintended effect: they made me question their conclusion on this matter, seeing that several of them not only permitted divorce but commanded it when sexual immorality was involved, and seeing that several of them also forbid remarriage for the widows, which is clearly allowed in Scripture. Das attempts to counter the common accusation of asceticism, saying the early church fathers still grounded their asceticism in Christ's teaching, therefore fall flat in light of the evidence he himself presented.
(3) Das's choice to stop at the ante-Nicene fathers is telling, likely because he knows that later fathers (esp. Ambrosiaster) and Christian emperors have continued with the permission to remarry after a valid divorce until the 11th century (cf. Herman Bavinck, "Reformed Ethics," pp. 175–76). Moreover, that the "published" ante-Nicene fathers all held the same view does not mean the church at large did (as evidenced by Augustine's need to address objections to his view), nor that they held their view with as much severity as they seem in his quotes (cf. Chemnitz, "Examination on the Council of Trent," vol. 2, pp. 750–55). While Das's book may seem like a recovery of the early church's view for the modern readers, the kind of work he did had already been done by the Reformers and Puritans who unanimously rejected that view. I especially commend Chemnitz's "Examination on the Council of Trent," Vol. 2, Topic 10, Sections V–VI; John Owen's treatise, "On Remarriage after Divorce" (https://www.berbc.org/johnowenremarraige) ; and Herman Bavinck's "Reformed Ethics," pp. 171–213, for a strong rebuttal by theologians familiar with the early church fathers.
Failure to persuade me aside, Das has made a solid contribution to the debate by doing his own rigorous exegesis and research and will need to be addressed by all future scholars looking to elucidate this most thorny and perennial issue. This is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to do their own research on the subject, whether for academic, pastoral, or personal reasons.
August 1, 2024
Doctor Das weighs into a field that is as full of papers and books as the North Atlantic has icebergs in winter. He has set before himself the task of addressing only the subject of remarriage in pre-Nicaean Christianity. He believes that much of scholarship has focused on divorce, but that it has assumed that in situations where divorce is allowed that remarriage is also allowed. Wenham and Heth weren't too certain about this (although Heth later changed his mind).
It is no spoiler to say that Dr. Das concludes that in the early church, remarriage was strongly discouraged -- even for the innocent party. He believes that the exception clauses were applied only to divorces, but not to allow remarriage. He thinks this was even true for widows, who seem to have been allowed to remarry, but were encouraged to remain single after the death of a spouse. Interestingly, he found evidence that Greco-Roman society at the time of Christ also believed in an ideal of monogamous, lifetime relationships, even if the majority of them did not practice these.
-- He spends time "reconstructing" what Jesus actually said. I am not sure how useful this is, but I think the main point is that the memory of the apostles was jarred by this teaching on divorce/remarriage. It was antithetical to anything that they had heard to this point. More than that, he makes the point that putting the Hillel/Shammai debate into the minds of Jesus and the apostles is anachronistic. The debate really peaked in the second century, after Christ, and probably wasn't in the mind's of those talking to Jesus.
-- He addresses what is meant by the various Greek words used in the passages and how they were used in both the New Testament, Septuagint, and secular Greek writings. This is not just the word porneia, although he does spend time in analyzing this.
-- He is certain the discussion of eunuchs that follows close on the heels of the teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 is closely related. That is, Jesus was teaching that those who are divorced are forced into a celibate lifestyle for the sake of the kingdom. The apostles were notably shocked by this idea.
-- He sees many people discounting the teachings of early church leaders as misogynistic or overly ascetic. He sees these same things as applicable to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, both of whom at a minimum, valued singleness equally to married life. Paul certainly would have said that there are significant benefits to singleness with respect to kingdom service that are not present for married individuals.
I think this is a really major point. It seems clear that at a minimum Jesus asks His followers to live lives of moral purity and to control even their thought lives. The idea that one cannot survive without sexual activity is antithetical to everything He taught, although it is highly prevalent in the society around us. I think it is difficult to even address these sorts of subjects if we come at them from the idea that God would not expect us to live in holy singleness. I believe that not only does He expect this of us, but if He asks this of us, He will also give us the power to live in such a state.
-- At the end, Dr. Das is not certain "where we go from here." How does the church deal with divorce and remarriage when it is so prevalent in the society around us? Do we annul these marriages or allow them to continue? The only thing he is certain of is that the early church would not recognize today's landscape as anything approaching to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I found the book easy to read and quite challenging. It is well researched and foot noted. Dr. Das attempts to address points that have been brought up in favor of remarriage and deal with them in in an honest and forthright manner. This is highly recommended for anyone wanting to get beneath the surface on this subject, even if you don't come out at the same place as Dr. Das, it will make you think.
It is no spoiler to say that Dr. Das concludes that in the early church, remarriage was strongly discouraged -- even for the innocent party. He believes that the exception clauses were applied only to divorces, but not to allow remarriage. He thinks this was even true for widows, who seem to have been allowed to remarry, but were encouraged to remain single after the death of a spouse. Interestingly, he found evidence that Greco-Roman society at the time of Christ also believed in an ideal of monogamous, lifetime relationships, even if the majority of them did not practice these.
-- He spends time "reconstructing" what Jesus actually said. I am not sure how useful this is, but I think the main point is that the memory of the apostles was jarred by this teaching on divorce/remarriage. It was antithetical to anything that they had heard to this point. More than that, he makes the point that putting the Hillel/Shammai debate into the minds of Jesus and the apostles is anachronistic. The debate really peaked in the second century, after Christ, and probably wasn't in the mind's of those talking to Jesus.
-- He addresses what is meant by the various Greek words used in the passages and how they were used in both the New Testament, Septuagint, and secular Greek writings. This is not just the word porneia, although he does spend time in analyzing this.
-- He is certain the discussion of eunuchs that follows close on the heels of the teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 is closely related. That is, Jesus was teaching that those who are divorced are forced into a celibate lifestyle for the sake of the kingdom. The apostles were notably shocked by this idea.
-- He sees many people discounting the teachings of early church leaders as misogynistic or overly ascetic. He sees these same things as applicable to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, both of whom at a minimum, valued singleness equally to married life. Paul certainly would have said that there are significant benefits to singleness with respect to kingdom service that are not present for married individuals.
I think this is a really major point. It seems clear that at a minimum Jesus asks His followers to live lives of moral purity and to control even their thought lives. The idea that one cannot survive without sexual activity is antithetical to everything He taught, although it is highly prevalent in the society around us. I think it is difficult to even address these sorts of subjects if we come at them from the idea that God would not expect us to live in holy singleness. I believe that not only does He expect this of us, but if He asks this of us, He will also give us the power to live in such a state.
-- At the end, Dr. Das is not certain "where we go from here." How does the church deal with divorce and remarriage when it is so prevalent in the society around us? Do we annul these marriages or allow them to continue? The only thing he is certain of is that the early church would not recognize today's landscape as anything approaching to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I found the book easy to read and quite challenging. It is well researched and foot noted. Dr. Das attempts to address points that have been brought up in favor of remarriage and deal with them in in an honest and forthright manner. This is highly recommended for anyone wanting to get beneath the surface on this subject, even if you don't come out at the same place as Dr. Das, it will make you think.
February 2, 2025
In his book Remarriage in Early Christianity, New Testament Scholar Andrew Das provides the case for why Jesus, Paul, and the first Christians were against remarriage in the case of divorce.
Das does this first by looking at divorce and remarriage in Jesus’ day. Both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources show that divorce and remarriage were fairly common and seemingly assumed. This helps to inform the background to which Jesus was speaking.
Das then moves to engage with Jesus himself. He does this by looking at the passage in Matthew in light of both Paul and the other Gospels. After doing that, Das analyzes the meaning of the words Jesus uses, which forbids remarriage. He also assesses the Matthean passage in light of its context.
Finally, Das looks at the teachings of Paul and the first Christians. He points out that both 1 Corinthians 7 and the teaching of the early church stand in solidarity with Jesus in forbidding remarriage after divorce.
Das does this first by looking at divorce and remarriage in Jesus’ day. Both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources show that divorce and remarriage were fairly common and seemingly assumed. This helps to inform the background to which Jesus was speaking.
Das then moves to engage with Jesus himself. He does this by looking at the passage in Matthew in light of both Paul and the other Gospels. After doing that, Das analyzes the meaning of the words Jesus uses, which forbids remarriage. He also assesses the Matthean passage in light of its context.
Finally, Das looks at the teachings of Paul and the first Christians. He points out that both 1 Corinthians 7 and the teaching of the early church stand in solidarity with Jesus in forbidding remarriage after divorce.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews