Deuteronomy 24:1-4
v.1 “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
v.2 “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
v.3 “And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; of if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
v.4 “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
Many brethren utilize this passage to prove that, through the words of Moses, God authorized divorce (v.1). Witness a recent letter to the “Tidings” in which the author wrote: “The concept of divorce is clearly taught in Deut. 24:1-4.” In actual fact, there is no provision for divorce for adultery in the Mosaic Law and this passage is not an exception. There is no command or implied permission for a man to divorce his wife or permission for the woman or the man to marry some other person. That is not the purpose of this legislation, as we shall see.
In an earlier article (“Tidings,” 2/90, pgs. 36-41), we examined the biblical kinship understanding of the marriage relationship. We found that a binding relationship results when a man and woman leave their respective families, cleave to one another and consummate their marriage. The husband and wife become as closely related to one another as they will be to their own children. The principle found in Gen. 2:24 is that man and wife are “one flesh;” that is, kin or blood relations. The Leviticus 18 laws concerning forbidden unions are not only predicated on literal blood lines but also on “blood” relationships created through marriage.
The relationships that come into being through marital relations with one’s partner are not dissolved by divorce. Lev. 18 makes it clear that legal divorce does not dissolve the marital union and the relationships established through that marriage. We shall see that in Deut. 24:1-4 this passage understands the “one flesh” principle to survive legal divorce as well as sexual relations with a third party.
The correct translation
The first thing we must do is understand exactly what Deut. 24:1-4 does and does not say. This is quite simple to accomplish.
In verse 1, the KJV reads: “then let him write her a bill of divorcement.” The following translations clearly show that the KJV does not accurately portray the intent of the verse — RV, Rotherham: “that he shall write her;” RSV, NIV, NEB: “and he writes her;” Moffat: “if he writes out;” Young’s Literal: “and he hath written for her;” Jerusalem Bible: “so he has made out.”
In these translations, we note there is no commandment, permission or direction implied: the man dismisses his wife after having put the instrument of divorce into her hand.
Similarly, in verse 2, where the KJV reads “she may go,” the correct translation is found in the following — RSV: “if she goes and becomes:” NIV: “she becomes:” NEB: “she goes off to become;” Young’s Lit.: “she…hath gone and been;” Jerusalem Bible: “she…goes away to become:” Moffat: “she goes and marries.”
Again, no permission is given for the wife’s action; there is no word for “may” in the Hebrew text. She has been expelled from her husband’s house and then she goes and joins herself to another man. Neither is there any Hebrew equivalent for the word “wife” (italicized in the KJV) in verse 2. Literally, we read: “and goes and becomes another man’s.” We shall see later that the Hebrew for the “latter,” (second) “husband” of v. 3 is quite different from that of the former, or first “husband” of v.4. In other words, the second “husband’s” legal status in society as a husband is not recognized by Yahweh who twice refers to him, through Moses, as simply ish — a man. We shall come back to this later.
“Some uncleanness” v.1
The next point needing clarification is the meaning of “some uncleanness” in v.1. “Uncleanness” is the Hebrew ervah which comes from a root “to be bare” and means “nudity” (Strong’s Concordance). The general usage of the word in the Old Testament is of nakedness, or moral uncleanness, with the connotation of improper or unlawful sexual relations. Its use in Lev. 18, where it occurs 24 times and is translated “nakedness,” leaves no doubt as to its meaning. “Some uncleanness” cannot in any way be limited to premarital unchastity (as Lev. 18 clearly shows). In the case where a husband suspected his bride of unchastity before marriage and accused her of not being a virgin, the law provided for an examination by the elders (Deut. 22:13-21). If found guilty, death was decreed. If not guilty, the woman could never be divorced for any reason. Hence, Deut. 24:1-4 could not apply to such a case.
We do not need to restrict “a matter of nakedness” to any narrow or specific problem on the woman’s part. Deut. 24:1-4 does not legislate divorce but treats it as a practice already known. Thus the interpretation of “some uncleanness” in v. 1 is really not that important in this consideration. The problem addressed by this legislation is with the woman’s original husband. Christ said it was for hardness of heart that Moses gave them this precept (Mt. 19:8; Mk. 10:5). He gave no hint that the man was in any way justified in putting away his wife. Surely the broad and deliberately non-specific term used by Moses, preceded by the suggestive words, “and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,” indicates what we have here is a problem of general dissatisfaction with a sexual relationship which leads a hard-hearted man to unburden himself of an unwanted woman.
Therefore, we conclude that “the matter of nakedness” refers simply to dissatisfaction by the husband with the marital sexual relationship for which he blames his wife. We hasten to stress that under no circumstances can Deut. 24:1-4 be seen as a permission for divorce or as legislation designed to provide grounds for such. The Mosaic writing is legislation designed to minimize the harm of the Israelites’ well-known track record of willful disobedience to God’s revealed will. There is no legislation laying grounds for divorce anywhere in the Old Testament; there is only a “suffering” of man’s weakness, similar to the suffering of polygamy.
An explanation of the legislation
Once it is appreciated that vs. 1-3 are merely a series of conditions which lead to the absolute prohibition of v.4, much of the fog that has surrounded this passage can be lifted. We do not need to establish with any certainty what “the matter of nakedness” refers to in order to understand the purpose of this legislation.
The situation Moses dealt with here was the abuse of the principles of marriage by hard-hearted Israelite’s who sought to dismiss a wife because of dissatisfaction in some aspect of their sexual relationship. It needs to be recognized that the Law operated in an environment where polygamy, slavery, and divorce were accepted practices in human society. Long subjected to the evils of Egypt, Israel, as a nation, was severely affected by various ungodly practices which the Law sought to correct by regulation and restriction. Grappling with the practical realities of a hardhearted society, the Law “suffered” the demand for the right to divorce, and thus, without providing permission, did give in these words tacit recognition to the widespread and endemic nature of this severe problem.
We come now to the crucial fourth verse. Any suggested treatment of Deut. 24:1-4 that does not speak to the reason for the prohibition of the reunion of the original couple in v.4 misses the intent of the legislation found in these verses. There can be no doubt about the prohibition in this passage. Even if the woman’s “latter husband” was dead (v.3), her first husband could not take her back in marriage. If the second man was dead, she could not be regarded as adulterous by re-marrying (Rom. 7:3), yet she was not to be taken back by the first man. Why not?
An unacceptable marriage
We must bear in mind that the second union was not regarded as a proper marriage by Yahweh. The “one flesh” status of the first marriage brought about by their sexual union, and this sexual union within a covenanted agreement before God, is what results in a unity that cannot be dissolved by the legal formalities of writing out and handing over a bill of divorce to the wife. A marriage, consummated by sexual union, still exists even after the legal contract has been annulled.
This is confirmed, as already noted, by the terminology used in scripture of the second “husband.” In v.4, the Hebrew word for husband in “former husband” is baal – “a master; hence a husband, or (fig.) owner” (Strong’s): the verb form of the same word is rendered “married” in v. 1 (Strong’s). In every case where baal is used in scripture relative to a sexual relationship, it refers to the husband who is the “master” in marriage.
In contrast to this, the Hebrew for “husband” in the phrase “latter husband” (v. 3 two times) is ish, “a man as an individual or a male person” (Strong’s). The implication is evident: Yahweh, through Moses, does not regard the status of the second union to be in the same category as the first. Furthermore, in v. 2, there is no word for “wife” in the Hebrew and “man’s” is from ish. Thus the woman was “another man’s” not “another man’s wife.” (Yahweh, through Moses, does not acknowledge the status of the second union as a marriage.)
Defiled by re-marriage
We now can see, in verse 4, why the second union “defiled” the woman, preventing her from returning to her first husband. “Defiled” is from the Hebrew tame: “to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense; contaminated” (Strong’s). The word is used 348 times in the Old Testament to signify ritual or moral defilement. It is never used of a proper marriage. The second sexual union defiled the woman, completely vitiating the idea that this passage permits divorce and remarriage under the Law. The wife’s intercourse with a second man has forever defiled the original and still remaining, “one flesh” relationship. This explains why she could not return to her first husband. The “abomination before Yahweh” which “caused the land to sin” was not so much the moral state of the woman but the remarriage of a man to his previously divorced and remarried wife. It is the man’s problem which must be focused upon, not the woman’s.
The woman is her first husband’s closest relation; she remains his own “flesh and blood.” The first marriage created a “one flesh” union which was a permanent relationship between the spouses: the two became “one flesh.” There is, as we have seen in Leviticus 18, a relationship formed akin to the blood relationship between a man and his sister.
The result is paradoxical. A man may not remarry his wife because his first marriage to her made her into one of his closest relatives. We feel Deuteronomy has taken the theological logic of Leviticus to its limit. It illustrates again the notion that underlies the incest laws and the laws on premarital intercourse. Sexual intercourse not only creates vertical blood relationships through the procreation of children, but horizontal ones as well: the partners to a marriage become one flesh. These horizontal relationships are just as enduring as the vertical ones.
Whether one understands the woman’s second marriage to be adulterous or remarriage to the original partner to be incestuous, one thing seems certain: the “one flesh” bond of marriage is not dissolved by legal or customary divorce nor by sexual relations with a third party. Deut. 24:1-4 does not teach a dissolution through divorce. On the contrary, the passage implies that to seek a divorce is to try to break a relationship with one’s wife that in reality cannot be broken. Just as we cannot “divorce” our children from being our own blood relations, no matter how disreputable they may be, so a man cannot “divorce” his wife who is his own flesh and blood through marriage. Thus the Deuteronomy passage understands the “one flesh” bond of marriage to survive legal or customary divorce. In conclusion, a proper understanding of Deut. 24:1-4 confirms our opening statement: there is no provision for divorce for adultery under the Mosaic Law.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One