The New Testament often distinguishes πορνεία from μοιχεία (Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4). Matthew regularly uses μοιχεία and its cognate verbal forms (e.g., Matt 5:32; 19:9!) and yet chooses πορνεία for the exception clauses.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 137
Modern cultural assumptions, personal predilections, denominational divisions, and life experiences are all too easily read back upon the ancient world. The social location of the researcher is always a factor.Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 9
In 1950 the average age at marriage was twenty for women and twenty-two for men; by 2019 those numbers rose to twenty-eight for women and thirty for men.Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 7
crucially, "second marriages" are discussed frequently and explicitly in the context of widows but never in the context of divorce. That absence is conspicuous and telling.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 279
Jesus therefore opposed how mainstream Judaism before, during, and after his earthly ministry viewed divorce and remarriage.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 82, Eerdmans
Remarriage is categorically censured as a matter of priestly holiness in one sector of Second Temple Judaism. While divorce was permitted, the Qumran scrolls in multiple places warn against illicit remarriage;Remarriage in Early Christianity, 51-52, Eerdmans
Many scholars now consider the Damascus Document fragment 4Qdf 3 10-15 decisive evidence that CD IV, 20-21 should indeed be interpreted in terms of a prohibition of remarriage while the first wife was still alive (and not strictly polygyny)Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 50
Christian authors as early as Tertullian openly promoted the tradition of the univira and the idea that widows must remain single and not remarry. He exhorted his own wife to remain ad univiratum as a widow. A number of Christian epitaphs likewise celebrate the univira in their ranks (CIL 10.7196; ICLV 1581). The Roman ideal was thus reprised in Latin Christianity in the WestRemarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 43
Language associated with the univira tradition parallels the apostle Paul's in Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:39... The wife is subject to the husband while he lives, and only his death brings about freedom. In the tradition of the univira, the wife does not avail herself of that freedom.Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 42
Despite the fact that actual marriages rarely emulated this ideal, during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian historians and commentators still held concerning the ideal Roman marriage that the wife should be married only once during her lifetime and praised as a univira, that the wife should obey her husband, and that the marriage would last a lifetime and be brought to an end by spousal death alone, if even then.Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 41
The ancients often celebrated the single, eternal union. One wife's tombstone inscription conveys that the marriage is coniugi perpetuae, a perpetual or unceasing martial union (Carm. Epigr. 1571.3).Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 40
For many ancient Romans the marital union remained permanent, even in the face of the death of a spouse. The eternal union would survive deathRemarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 38
As a rough generalization historical Jesus researchers and early Christian specialists working in the ante-Nicene (and even post-Nicene) period are more likely to affirm that early ecclesiastical authors denied the possibility of remarriage after divorce while the former spouse still lived.Remarriage in Early Christianity, Eerdmans, 12
Despite the Pauline texts explicitly allowing it, if the remarriage of widows required extensive discussion and justification, how much more would remarriage after divorce had that been viewed as an option?Remarriage in Early Christianity, 279
In allowing divorce under these circumstances, it is striking, nevertheless, that Matthew does not say that the aggrieved husband could remarry. The absolute form of Jesus's teaching in Mark and Luke warns against simply assuming that the divorced husband enjoys that freedom.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 157
As Matthew writes for a Jewish audience sensitive to the pressures (or, for many, requirement) to divorce the sexually unfaithful, an absolute prohibition of divorce would have been a stumbling block. Matthew's Jesus clarifies that the prohibition did not keep the husbands from divorcing adulterous wives, as expected in their legal traditions. Divorce would be permissible in these circumstances.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 155
Jesus's logic is that if the woman was divorced because of πορνεία, then she would already be an adulteress (and no one should marry an adulteress). If she was divorced for some other reason, the divorce was unlawful (since πορνεία is the only legitimate reason), and the woman is not free to marry another.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 153
Out of necessity, the innocent wife is made (i.e., caused to become) an adulteress by marrying another man. In other words, God's will for the original marital union renders any subsequent union adulterous, despite the legality of the divorce, the declared freedom to remarry in the divorce certificate, and the divorced wife's innocence.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 149
The term πορνεία more frequently refers to women's violation of the marital relationship since "adultery" (μοιχεια) was used primarily in reference to men's activity.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 143
Jesus teaching in both Mark and Luke would have been taken as shocking, countercultural, and absolute. These authors would have needed to provide their reading indication that divorce would be acceptable in certain instances. After the absolute statements, the readers could not be expected to assume it.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 104, Eerdmans
One must take each gospel on its own terms and not hastily interject or overlay another gospel's context onto it. For that matter, Jesus's absolute prohibition in Mark 10:11 is of remarriage after the divorce. The Matthean exception clauses may pertain only to the prohibition against divorce, which would imply just as absolute a prohibition of remarriage there as well.Remarriage in the Early Church, 98
An interpretation of Mark that finds its inspiration in the exception clauses of Matthew is problematic and unlikely. First, the Pharisees' question in Mark 10:2 is whether divorce is at all lawful. Mark's Jesus does not respond by permitting divorce in instances of sexual sin but implies that divorce is against God's will and command, period.Remarriage in the Early Church, 98
despite the almost universal tendency on the part of NT exegetes to explain Jesus' prohibition of divorce against the "background" of the debate between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this tendency may actually be a prime example of the anachronistic use of later texts to explain earlier ones. That is, a text written down for the first time at the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. (the Mishna) is called upon to educate a teaching of Jesus reaching back to the early part of the 1st century A.D., with written attestation in the 50s by Paul and ca. 70 by Mark. Considering the dearth of any clear attestation of the dispute over the grounds of divorce between the Houses in the pre-70 period, we would do well, at least initially, to explain Jesus' teaching on divorce soley in light of what is truly prior to and contemporary with the Palestinian Judaism of the 1st century A.D.Law and Love, 95
In a world of widespread divorce and remarriage, Paul's Jesus taught that the marital bond had long-term implications. If divorced, remarriage was not an option.Remarriage in Early Christianity, 67, Eerdmans
If an unbelieving husband divorces his wife, she is no longer bound to her husband, but she is still bound to the law of God. The freedom of a deserted believer does not imply the freedom to marry.Divorce Myth, 87