Prof. Luck on Not Under Bondage

Prof. Luck in email correspondence gave me some feedback on the post Not Under Bondage.
Since I made a change in the table, I also changed a word of his reply to so that it would make sense. I have bolded that word and the Professor is aware of the change.
Luck's writing were very beneficial in clearing out the dead wood of the MDR landscape.  Luck's work can be found here: 
Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View


And his comments on my original post, Not Under Bondage are below:


" The material in the upper left quadrant is teaching derived from Christ (Verses 10-11)…most likely of the substance of Mark 10:11-12. Lower left quadrant in the teaching of Paul in regard to circumstances not covered by that teaching, namely in conditions of interfaith marriages where the unbeliever does not see severance of the marriage (Verses 12-13 with supporting rationale in 14 & 16).The - lower right- quadrant is Paul’s teaching regarding cases where the unbeliever does seek a divorce (verse 15).
.... In effect, Paul’s teaching here draws from Deut. 24:1, which Jesus addresses in Matt. 5:31-32 and was called upon by the Pharisees to explain in the event recorded in Matt. 19/Mark 10. Since the discussion in both places was with regard to the man’s rights to unilaterally divorce his wife, there is no direct discussion of a woman’s rights to be free of a marriage, but clearly the permission of Moses had that in view. 
The material in the upper left quadrant, being the general teaching of Jesus, does not enter into a discussion of allowable grounds for divorce, i.e., “fornication” of the wife, but I presume that Jesus’ teaching of the exception clause would have been known to Paul and his readers…that in regard to your #2. In regard to your #1, Jesus touches on a woman’s divorce without grounds in Matt. 5:32b and Mark 10:12, but discusses no exception to a woman’s initiating divorce in either place. Which is not to say that He would not have allowed it. Deut. 24:1 explicitly allows for the man to divorce her and assumes her freedom, not only from the marriage, but to remarry as well (Deut. 24:2-3). Also relevant as background for Paul’s teaching is Exodus 21:10-11, where a man is forced to free his wife if he presumes to diminish a first wife’s provisions in view of a second marital covenant. Divorce (unjustified) is complete diminishing and therefore is in the same category as the freeing of the wife in Ex. 21.
In 1 Cor. 7:10b-11a Paul presumes that the divorcing woman has no valid grounds. We know that by the word “reconciled.” That word always elsewhere presumes that the person to be reconciled is the offender. I think that Paul is saying there that an unjustified divorce has taken place, rather than a mere separation. I also think that Paul is advising the woman in the short run, rather than in the long. In other words, he speaks to a situation in which the possibility of restoration is still a reality. I don’t think that he would deny her a right to remarry if the husband refused to take her back…perhaps had assumed another marital relationship in the meanwhile. Such quick marriages-divorces-remarriages were very common in the Empire at that time.
In the lower left quadrant, I would suggest you substitute “shouldn’t” for “can’t,” as obviously her physical ability isn’t the issue, but the morality of it. (I have changed it-pierce)
In the upper right quadrant, your wording is a bit odd and perhaps misleading. It is highly unlikely that the departing unbelieving spouse would not have divorced the Christian. In the Empire, divorces were quite informal and “departing” would signify “divorcing.” Thus the freedom that Paul allows would either have involved 1) not attempting to force a continuing marriage—which would have been utterly unthinkable as well as unreasonable in the Empire, or 2) the right to remarry—which was assumed in non-Christian circles. In Christian circles, remember that Deut. 24:2-3 provides a right to remarry when unjustly divorced, and, in fact, the only marital obligation that a Jewish/Christian woman had was to remain monogamous to her husband while he had that status (cf. Rom. 7:2ff). Therefore, to be free from that is to be free to remarry. As far as the man was concerned, he always had the right to remarry…indeed in Jewish territories, and likely even in the remainder of the Empire, Jews were allowed to be polygynist husbands, and Jesus’ teaching with regard to “and marries another,” as being involved with adultery, is most likely simply a statement of the likely motive for his divorcing unjustly (cf. Ex. 21:10 as well). In Jesus’ day, a man could take a second wife without moral onus (except among the Essenes), and therefore it must be the divorce which preceded the remarriage wherein the sin of adultery obtained (see also the logic of Matt. 5:32b as condemning the man who marries a divorced woman as committing adultery insofar as he was complicit in her unjust divorce which prepared the way for their marriage. That this is most likely the correct interpretation is supported by the “celebrity case” of Herod Antipas, who encouraged Herodias to initiate a divorce of Philip in order to marry him.)"
-William F Luck