Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Chapter 24 Regulation On The Result of Divorce and On Fair Dealing and Consideration For Others.
Regulation On Divorce and Remarriage With The Same Woman (Deuteronomy 24:1).
This regulation caused much dissension between the Rabbis. The question for them was as to what ‘because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘some nakedness of a thing', compare Deuteronomy 23:14) in her' meant. Shammai said that it signified fornication and unclean behaviour. Hillel argued that it simply meant anything that displeased the husband. Jesus came down on the side of Shammai, but limited it to adultery.
The argument that it could not refer to adultery, because the punishment for adultery was death, overlooks the fact that such a sentence would only be passed where the husband had lodged his case and called in witnesses. If the husband did not wish to pursue the death penalty, and no one else took up the case, it would not necessarily be exacted, unless the woman was discovered by others in open breach. (Compare how in the Matthew 1:19, in what appeared to be a similar case, ‘Joseph being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly').
But this was not actually a law laying down a case for divorce. The Law in fact never lays down a case for divorce. It was disapproved of by God. This was about one particular point as to what was to happen when a man following custom had divorced a wife who then remarried, and was later divorced by the second husband, or whose second husband died. The point being made was that the first husband could not remarry her. That was seen as a step too far.
Such a position would in practise be very important. Otherwise there would always be the danger that the longstanding relationship of the first marriage might act as a constant magnet to draw the woman out of a second marriage to remarry her first husband. It might produce instability in the second marriage. It might even cause some women to poison their second husbands so as to be able to return to the first.
It also prevented reckless divorces gone through on the basis that if they wished they could always come together again. The introduction of this regulation here might suggest that Moses was very much aware of recent cases where these things had occurred.
This chapter again has ‘thou, thee' all the way through apart from Deuteronomy 24:7 and Deuteronomy 24:8 where the change simply stresses that everyone is involved.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
· When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘nakedness of a word/thing') in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1).
· And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife (Deuteronomy 24:2).
· And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife (Deuteronomy 24:3).
· Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:4).
Note that in ‘a' the husband divorces his wife, and in the parallel may not take her again once she has remarried, even if her husband dies. In ‘b' she marries another man, and in the parallel it is posited that she is divorced by him, or that he dies.
‘ When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘nakedness of a word/thing') in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.'
Moses was really here only explaining that a divorce had taken place for some particular reason, without going into detail, although he undoubtedly did see it as a valid reason. He was not, however, intending it to be analysed, either by the Rabbis, or by would be divorce seekers of the present day. He expected his listeners to know the customary conditions for divorce, so he did not explain them here. His reference was not specific. But what did ‘nakedness of a word/thing' convey. It would certainly seem to suggest some sexual transgression or something unpleasantly unclean. We can compare Deuteronomy 23:14 where the same phrase is used and translated as ‘unclean' and signifies a man's waste products.
The word for ‘nakedness' is regularly used of the shame of a person's nakedness being revealed. It is not the word for ritually unclean nor for things which were just generally unseemly. So ‘nakedness' usually connects with something to do with sex or the sexual organs. An act of adultery or near adultery for which he did not wish to press charges would fit the bill exactly, possibly a case where she had been discovered before the actual adultery took place, or of actual adultery where there were no witnesses, and his reticence on the matter is then explained by the fact that he divorced her rather than openly accusing her and that he was represented as loving her enough to be willing to take her back after the second divorce.
But while he did not press charges it had been sufficient of a blow to his family honour and his own sense of pride for him to give her a divorce contract in writing and send her away. Possibly out of shame she had even demanded it. It would seem, also, that she left without any rights, which would indicate that she had sinned grievously. That divorce was possible is made clear by Deuteronomy 22:19; Deuteronomy 22:29, but not on what conditions. Those verses were simply saying that never again could those particular men bring an action for divorce against that woman for any reason. (Others could accuse her but not them. They had forfeited their right by their behaviour. They were not considered trustworthy). So the grounds for divorce here seems to be restricted to sexual misconduct.
‘ And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.'
Once the woman was dismissed from his household she may take the step of going and becoming another man's wife. (This was not giving permission for this, only stating that it may happen. Unless she returned home it was almost her only option). She had her written contract declaring her to be free. We note here that it was seemingly seen as perfectly acceptable by custom for her to remarry, but never stated in God's Law. It was this remarriage that Jesus called adultery, and said that it was only allowed by God, although never authorised by Him, for the hardness of their hearts. The point was not that He had condoned it, but that He did not interfere with the general custom and actually forbid it.
‘ And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.'
But the second husband might hate her and also give her a bill of divorcement, and send her from his household. Here the condition for the divorce is the husband's ‘hate'. It is the same word as that which caused a false accusation of adultery in Deuteronomy 22:13. It is thus in the wider context connected with a man who accused his wife of sexual misbehaviour. (The fact that the one who made the false charge of adultery in Deuteronomy 22:13 found it necessary to do so demonstrates that divorce was not easy). But no detail of why this second husband hated her is given. There is nothing to say what it was. For that is not what Moses was seeking to demonstrate here. It is probably suggesting in summary form the fact that she had done exactly the same as she did to her first husband.
Alternately the second husband might die. By adding the clause ‘if the second husband dies' Moses has put us on the spot. We must immediately ask in passing why Moses complicated things and even mentioned the possibility of a divorce in the second case. It is clearly irrelevant to the case, for if it had not happened it would have made no difference to the argument. The second husband's death would produce the same situation. Why then did he not just use the illustration that her second husband died? The answer can only be because he wanted to bring out what the woman was like, that all the fault lay with the woman. She was the kind of woman, said Moses, who might easily have had a second divorce. She was a disaster waiting to happen.
But the vital point was now reached. She was again free. However, we now learn that even under the old law the first husband cannot now remarry her. He knows that she was ‘shown as defiled'. But why was she ‘shown as defiled'? We may basically ignore the actions of the second husband, because the same would apply even if he had done nothing and had simply died. Thus we must concentrate on the first husband. And here we must ignore the effect of the theoretical remarriage to the first husband because she was ‘shown to be defiled' before that had happened.
How had she been shown to be defiled? It may be by her behaviour which had caused the first divorce, of which possibly only he knew, or it may be by her, to his knowledge, having married a second time, or both. To him she had twice revealed herself as an adulteress. There was, however, no suggestion about whether she was or was not permitted to marry again. It was simply stated as something that did happen. No comment is made on it, although as we have seen Moses does make clear what he thought of her.
This is very important to note. Had God approved of divorce it would have been so important a factor that surely it would have been legislated for. Yet it was never legislated for. The only concession that God made was not to interfere with the custom because of the hardness of their hearts. He did not step in to interfere with the custom. But divorce nowhere has God's blessing.
Thus the ‘showing of defilement' only seems to apply to the first husband. He not only knew about the divorce certificate, but he also knew the facts behind the case. For him therefore to take her now would be for him to take a woman he knew to be permanently defiled, and defiled in such a way that the defilement could not be removed. For she had committed adultery by going with her second husband. And that could surely only indicate a continuingly adulterous woman. To marry her would result in his own permanent defilement and would defile the land (compare Jeremiah 3:1).
Another alternative explanation is that he was the only one who knew about the two (or one) divorce contracts. Others would have only known about one, or none at all. So he knew that she had been married twice while her first husband was still alive and was thereby an adulteress against him. Thus to marry her as an adulteress against him would be to confirm her adultery and be equally defiling, and would defile the land. She could no longer come to him as unsullied to become one with him. It would in Yahweh's eyes be obscene. It would be making a mockery of all that marriage stood for. It would be so obscene that it would cause the land which had been given to them as an inheritance from Yahweh to sin. For the sins done in the land were the sins of the land.
Whichever way it was, (and in some ways they were saying the same thing), it was her continuing adulterous state that banned the marriage. And yet as the banning is only in relation to marriage with him it must connect with his personal knowledge of her. He would know that she had not just made one slip up, but was an adulteress through and through. Anyone else who married her might not realise what kind of woman she was, and would not therefore be deliberately sinning against the land. But he did know and would be doing so.