Sunday Sermons
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
In seeking to understand God’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage Deuteronomy 24:1-4 might, at first sight, appear to be a perplexing passage. Most people who have read what Jesus said on the subject (Matthew 19:9) have reacted like the disciples did when they heard it, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (19:10). In contrast to Jesus’ one exception for divorce and remarriage, at first glance Deuteronomy 24:1-4 seems to present a much looser position, and this admittedly has confused a number of bible students. First of all let’s examine the text, then Jesus’ interpretation, and finally some modern points of view.
The Text
24:1 “When a man takes and wife and marries her”: Carefully observe that God is not commanding the situation described. God is neither commanding nor condoning the divorce in this verse, rather this is what we might call a “when” (24:1), “then” (24:4) type of legislation. It is very similar to all the “if” legislation in the Law (Exodus 21:18ff). What is being described is not encouraged, in fact it maybe unlawful (22:1). The “if” is first described, “if this happens” and then the consequence or punishment is given. Thus God is not encouraging nor necessarily endorsing the situation that transpires in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. Clearly, God is not encouraging divorce when at the same time and under the same Law He says that He hates divorce(Malachi 2:16). “And it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her”: The King James Version here says, “uncleanness”, and the word literally means literally “nakedness of a thing”. The meaning of the noun is unclear. Some believe it refers to some immodest exposure or unwomanly conduct, yet it cannot refer to sexual immorality in this context, because there were other clear penalties for such things as sexual immorality during the marriage(Deuteronomy 22:13-22), and sexual immorality prior to the marriage in question. The grounds for divorce are rather vague here. Jewish rabbis held vastly differing opinions on the meaning of this phrase, and this is born out by their question to Jesus inMatthew 19:3. Ribberbos makes a good point when he says that the stricter Jewish school of Shammai limited this expression to licentiousness and unchastity. But if the later was thought of in terms of adultery, it would be in conflict with the intent of the law, since the adulteress was to be put to death” (Bible Students Commentary p. 233). Thus he believes the expression may refer to something offensive or repulsive. Yet note the emphasis on “Finds no favor in his eyes because he has found”: The man here is putting away his wife not because she finds no favor in the eyes of God, but rather from his perspective he sees something he does not like. 24:2 “She leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife”: Note, this is not something the Law is commanding but it assumes that such takes place. 24:3 “If”: Another possibility. “Or if the latter husband dies”: Another “if”. 24:4 “Then”: Here is now the command that God issues. “Her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled”: The words in this section, “defiled”, “abomination”, “sin” (24:4)—could suggest that everything up to verse 4 did not have God’s approval. “After she has been defiled”—the language suggests adultery (Leviticus 18:20). The sense is that the woman’s remarriage after the first divorce issimilar to adultery in that the woman cohabits with another man” (Craigie p. 305). “Defiled is an unusual form of the verb occurring only here; but the stative verb occurs frequently with the meaning ‘to be unclean, impure, or defiled’ and specifically depicts the result of adultery in Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:13-14,20. So here it refers to whatever defilement is associated with adultery” (Gaebelein p. 146). Carefully observe that the woman is said to be presently defiled even if her second marriage had ended (the husband died). This seems to suggest that there was indeed something wrong with the initial divorce and subsequent remarriage.
Jesus’ Interpretation
Matthew 19:3 “Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?’” Notice that the Jewish leaders of the time had their own disagreements on the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. As previously noted, one school confined the meaning of the term “uncleaness” to licentiousness and unchastity, while another school taught that a man could divorce his wife if she ruined a meal or if he found another woman more attractive (See Ridderbos p. 233). 19:4 “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning”: Observe that Jesus does not begin with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, rather He goes all the away back to the first two chapters in Genesis. God created both men and women (19:4), and because there are two genders a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife (19:5). Obviously, the command to cleave and be one flesh, is at odds with the idea that a man can divorce his wife for any cause. Thus Jesus concludes, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”. The “therefore” in this verse is Jesus’ conclusion, necessary inference, or interpretation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 placed side by side. 19:7 “They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” The Jewish leaders, like a number of people today felt that Jesus’ answer in 19:6 “Let no man separate”, was not in harmony with what Moses commanded in Deuteronomy 24:1. They immediately perceived that Jesus’ teaching was far different from what Moses said in the above passage. Notice that they had interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 as giving them divine permission to put away their wives and remarry without sin.
19:8 “He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way’”. This is the inspired interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
· “Because of your hardness of heart”:
This is why this section was recorded in the Law. From this statement we are given one more evidence that the “uncleanness” or “indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 was not sexual immorality, because one can put away their mate for that cause, and it is not evidence that the person putting away their mate has a hard heart. This also reveals that the “cause” of putting away in Deuteronomy 24:1 did not meet with God’s approval, because only the hard-hearted would do this. Some have sought to argue that Deuteronomy 24:1ff was given so the Jews could put away their wives for adultery when they found themselves occupied by foreign powers who had removed their right to implement the death penalty. Yet Jesus did not invoke Deuteronomy 24:1 when the woman who had been caught in adultery was brought to Him (John 8:1-11), and here He plainly labels the actions of the man described in Deuteronomy 24:1 as being sinful and the actions of a man who had a hard heart.
· “Moses permitted”:
It is a good question to ask, “Why did God permit something that was wrong?” He didn’t. Remember that God is not authorizing anything in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. “The man is not authorized to divorce his wife for some uncleanness. The woman is not authorized to marry another man. The other man is not authorized to divorce his new wife. Compare with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where a man lays with a virgin who is not betrothed. He is to marry her, pay the father 50 shekels of silver and never divorce her. Well if he agrees to all of those consequences prior to the act, does that mean God authorized fornication?” (Focus Magazine, “Misapplying Deuteronomy 24, Berry Kercheville, June 1999, p. 14). Secondly, God did not make any spiritual or moral concessions through Moses in the above passage. Jesus said that such a situation manifested a hard heart, and Moses said that the woman had been defiled. God is not conceding any moral ground. Thus what was permitted was not the acceptance of immorality, but mere civil tolerance in the nation of Israel of such divorces. God is simply giving a civil regulation for a bad practice.
· “But from the beginning it has not been this way”:
“When Jesus says, ‘From the beginning it was not so’, what was not so? Jesus states it clearly in Matthew 19:8. It was not so that men were ‘permitted to divorce their wives’ for just any reason. Therefore whatever it is that Moses was teaching, it was not to be considered as the law of God that had always been in effect. Notice that Jesus does not say ‘in’ the beginning it was not so, but ‘from’ the beginning it was not so. Some argue that after the sin in the garden, God changed His moral law on the matter of divorce. That is not what Jesus said” (Focus p. 14). Jesus stressed the fact that He is appealing to the beginning twice in this section (19:4,8). As in other passages, truths that are rooted in creation are unchanging, as in male headship (1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Corinthians 11:3). When the Jewish leaders asked about whether or not such was “lawful”, they completely ignored the fact that Moses had also written Genesis 2:24. Seeing that this is God’s law on the matter “from the beginning” then it must apply to all men.
· “But I say to you”:
“Why would we use anything in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 to explain Jesus in Matthew 19:9 when Jesus expressly said that Moses permitted something because of the hardness of your hearts?” (Focus p. 14). In light of the clear, “but I say to you”, we cannot conclude that Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is teaching the same thing as Matthew 19:9. Therefore, Matthew 19:9 is not teaching that one can divorce their mate for every cause, that the uncleanness of Deuteronomy and the sexual immorality of Matthew are the same. Or, that having been given a certificate of divorce for the cause of fornication, that the one put away can marry another without committing adultery.
Final Thoughts
“Some are teaching that the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24 is not fornication and therefore they admit that the man sinned when he divorced his wife and that his wife sinned by marrying another man. But since she was forbidden to go back to her first husband, God was authorizing this second marriage” (Focus p. 13). Yet such a view is in conflict with the word “defiled”, Jesus’ “from the beginning” teaching (Matthew 19:9; 5:32 “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”), and the very nature of repentance (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Some have argued that since God is unchanging, then His moral law must be unchanging, and therefore Matthew 19 must be subjected to Deuteronomy 24. God is unchanging, but His laws have changed. In fact, He removed an entire law system(Hebrews 7:12). God has not divided His laws into moral and “ceremonial” or “non-moral”. The Sabbath was one of His laws and violation of it brought the death penalty (Exodus 31:14). Yet more to the point, in Matthew 19:3-9 Jesus plainly taught thatDeuteronomy 24:1-3 did not supercede, alter, nor change God’s law on this matter. “Probably the worst mistake being made in this reasoning is using Moses in Deuteronomy 24 to explain Jesus in Matthew 19 instead of using Jesus to explain Moses”(Focus p. 13).
Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com
