Troublesome Topic: Divorce and Remarriage in the Law Deut 24

The word used here referred to a woman who, after marriage, began to exhibit indecent, immodest behavior by exposing sexually stimulating parts of her body to other men. It had not yet led to adultery, but it likely would for what other reason did a woman have to abandon the modesty that was common in that culture?

This explains why there was no death penalty – she had not committed adultery yet; but she seemed to be headed that direction.

Thus, in my opinion, the permission for divorce did not grant a husband the freedom to dismiss his wife if she burned breakfast, or any other trivial matter. It seems to be pointing to evidence of inappropriate conduct on her part that would lead to adultery if it continued. This word made divorce under the Law a very rare thing because the permission granted was for a narrowly defined situation.

If a man found himself in a situation where his wife was trying to entice other men by showing them private parts of her body, the Law gave the husband something he could do about the situation when he saw it starting and before an act of adultery had taken place.

The husband intended the dismissal to be permanent, but God seems to have intended it to be temporary so that she would recognize the need to amend her ways and then be able to return to her husband. After that, the marriage would be free of such dangers.

However, not everyone would agree that it described a narrowly defined situation. There were two schools of rabbinic thought that developed with differing interpretations of this part of Deuteronomy. The school of Shammai understood the Hebrew word in question as unchastity, as I have described above. But the school of Hillel thought the word was open enough to interpret it as any displeasing behavior, blemish, even the most trivial cause of dislike.

The decision to divorce, according to Dt 24:1, was in the hands of the husband, not the wife. So this was not intended to protect women from abuse. The wife’s recourse in the case of abuse was to run away from her husband and return to the safety of her father or brother if her father was dead, who should protect her against further abuse. In other words, she returned to her previous authority structure because the one she found herself in was not healthy. In such a case the bride-price would not be returned because it was the husband’s fault she had run away.

In this discussion I will often use the words dismiss and separate instead of the word divorce. However, if I do use the word divorce, it will be closer to the Old Testament meaning rather than our modern meaning. It will be less permanent than our word for divorce; therefore the word separation fits well.

> This seems to be the key passage in the Law about divorce (separation) and remarriage. Other passages mention divorce, but this one addresses divorce and remarriage directly.

> This passage assumes the reader knows that divorce is not the plan, it is an exception. It assumes the reader knows that remarriage is not allowed because it causes uncleanness. This passage goes down the path it does in order to answer a question people of that day may have asked, “Can the original husband have her back?” The answer was “no.”

> the only case in which remarriage was accepted was in the case of the death of one spouse – then the other was free to establish a new relationship (while following the rest of the guidelines of the Law).

Why would remarriage make her unclean?

I am convinced that sexual relations outside of marriage were considered wrong and were punished harshly because they disrupted the lines of authority that had been established for the children that could be produced by the sexual act. The statements about remarriage after a dismissal found in both the Former Covenant and the New Covenant indicate that remarriage falls into a similar category as adultery because it has the same effect of disturbing the lines of authority and making them unclear. The difference was that adultery was punished with death while remarriage after divorce brought a state of uncleanness, but not death.

The state of uncleanness, which is entered into by remarriage after a dismissal, persists even if the first husband wants to marry her again and even if the second husband has died. I believe this was due to the fact that the lines of authority were scrambled by the second marriage while the first husband was still alive. By contrast, if a woman’s husband died and then she remarried, it would not hinder the lines of authority in any way because a dead man cannot exercise authority. However, in the example given in this passage, the scrambling of the lines of authority happened while both husbands were still alive, that is why the death of the second husband would not unscramble the authority problems. In a practical sense one would think that the death of either of her husbands would solve the authority problems, but God made things more strict than that in order to teach them to do all they could to avoid these problems in the first place.

While dismissing a wife was permitted (though not encouraged), remarriage after such a separation was not permitted. This should have made men think seriously before dismissing a wife. In the example given in this passage, the reason for the separation on the part of the first husband was a legitimate reason – that of shameful nakedness, i.e. exposure of certain parts of her body to another man. In such a case the husband was fully within his rights to dismiss her because he could see that such action would lead to adultery on her part. However, though he could divorce her without guilt, he was not permitted to find another wife. In this way the law that God established encouraged men to do everything humanly possible to restore their marriage to a healthy condition and deal wisely with any threats to his marriage.

Did other references to divorce in the Law have to comply with Deuteronomy 24, or was the allowance for divorce broader than Deuteronomy 24?

The other passages mention divorce in the process of explaining something else, whereas Deuteronomy 24 is directly addressing the issue of marriage after divorce. Therefore, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 seems to be the key passage on divorce and remarriage in the Law and the other references to divorce had to comply to what is found in Deuteronomy 24.

Teaching Tool or Key Principle?

Were the regulations about divorce and remarriage just teaching tools, or were they key principles that could not be separated from the regulations that taught them?

Since I cannot find a way to separate the teaching tool from the truth being taught, and since I find no good way to teach the principles effectively without the regulations, I lean toward thinking that the regulations about divorce and remarriage were also important. Jesus seemed to think this way too.

What spiritual lessons did this teach?

There are other applications to the truths taught by these regulations which are not directly related to marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 taught that if we are heading the wrong direction, God may choose to give us a wake-up call by slapping us hard before we get to the end of that road – before we walk away from God and end up in a state of spiritual death where eternal punishment in hell is the result. The situation where we are drifting away from God and He is calling us back to Him is being equated to a time of separation for a married couple. God’s activity during this time may be something like a dryness or other deep need that is not being met, or some event or situation that God uses to try and get our attention. This time of dryness is actually a sign of His mercy and grace. He is giving us another chance to come back to Him and live for Him, not for ourselves. He is taking action that makes us think about our spiritual condition before final judgment is required. During that time we are not allowed to put ourselves in the number 1 position. That is idolatry and is met with death, unless God shows us mercy and gives us another chance.

What About Children of Divorce in Ancient Israel?

Under the Law, what happened to the children of a long-lasting divorce?

Well, the Law did not address that issue directly. However, it appears that the children stayed under the authority of the father and were probably raised by a joint effort involving the father, the grandmother and the grandfather.

The next lesson is: God Did Not Condone Divorce as a Loophole for Adultery Malachi 2