Appendix 1

Four Interpretive Problems in Deuteronomy 24:1-4³⁷⁰

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is a passage that is very important in the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage. There are four problems that need solving for us to determine the correct interpretation of this passage.

Problem #1

What is the protasis (the clause that expresses the condition in a conditional sentence) and what is the apodosis (the clause that expresses the result)?

View #1: The protasis occurs in 24:1a, "When a man . . . uncleanness in her."The apodosis occurs in 24:1b-4, "then let him . . . for an inheritance"(as in the AV). God commanded divorce on the grounds of "uncleanness"in the wife. He prohibited remarriage to her first husband after the death of or divorce by her second husband.

View #2: The protasis occurs in 24:1-3, "When a man . . . be his wife."The apodosis occurs in 24:4, "then her former . . . as an inheritance"(as in the NASB, NIV, and RSV). God permitteddivorce on the grounds of "indecency"in the wife. He also prohibited remarriage to her first husband after the death of or divorce by her second husband.

Evaluation: View #2 reflects the opinion of most translators concerning the proper protasis and apodosis relationship. Rather than commanding or encouraging divorce, as the Pharisees interpreted it in Jesus' day, this passage therefore controlled or regulated how a man could obtain a divorce in Israel. It also condemned the practice of a woman remarrying her first husband after her second husband either died or divorced her.

Problem #2

What is the "indecency"for which a man could divorce his wife?

View #1: Some specific offense is in view. Scholars have suggested several. The possibilities include fornication, anything displeasing to her husband, inability to bear children, or some physical defect. Other options are indecent exposure, embarrassment caused to the husband by the wife's social behavior, lesbianism (one type of fornication), or some other serious offense.

View #2: No specific offense is in view. Instead indecency refers to what the husband erroneously judged to be a legitimate ground for divorce. In other words God permitted divorce when the husband believed his wife had done something illegitimate even though she had not.

Evaluation: View #2 seems to be better for the following reasons. Adultery was punishable by death so the indecency could hardly be that offense. The Jews debated the meaning of the term "indecency"in Jesus' day. This probably indicates that no one understood it to refer to a specific offense even when God first gave it. If only one indecent act was in view this statute would not cover divorce for other reasons. A woman could remarry her former husband only if the first marriage broke up for this specific cause. However this statute seems to be controlling all illegitimate divorce.

Objections

Responses

This would mean God was making divorce easy.

God was not allowing just any divorce. This statute controls and protects the wife to a degree from anyillegitimate divorce, not just one type of illegitimate divorce.

Lexically "indecent"can mean "indecent exposure."

This would be a rare cause of divorce and would limit greatly the application of this statute in Israelite life. The phrase "to uncover nakedness"is euphemistic and means "to have sex."If God meant indecent exposure, it would most likely involve sexual sin. This was for the most part punishable by death in Israel.

Could not lesbianism be in view?

The broad term "indecent"argues against such a limited interpretation. Furthermore the prescribed punishment for lesbians was execution in Israel (Lev. 18:22, 29).

Problem #3

Why does the second marriage defile the wife?

View #1: She has had sex with another man.

View #2: Her status regarding her first husband changed from wife to sister when they got married. If she returned to her first husband (brother) after a second marriage, that union would be incestuous.

View #3: The divorce, not the second marriage alone, changed her status regarding her first husband irreversibly.

View #4: The second marriage constitutes adultery.

Evaluation: View #4 seems best for these reasons. If this passage indeed controls illegitimate divorce, there was no legitimate divorce in Israel. All such divorce would dissolve the first marriage. Therefore the consummation of the second marriage would be adulterous. The word "defiled"suggests adultery (Lev. 18:20). Matthew 5:32 supports this view. Jesus Christ indicated that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. It is the remarriage that defiles, not the divorce.

Objections

Responses

This view reads the New Testament (i.e., Matt. 5:32) back into the Old Testament.

Progressive revelation has simply illuminated what the reason for the prohibition was. The Old Testament Israelite may not have understood fully the reason for the law, just the requirement. In Matthew 5 Jesus was clarifying the law (cf. Matt. 5:17).

Remarriage did not bear a stigma as adultery in Israel, and God allowed it.

God conceded to remarriage in the same way He conceded to divorce. Both were taking place though God did not approve their practice. Jesus clarified that the spirit of the law was that remarriage after divorce was adultery. The fact that the Mosaic Law did not demand death for adultery under these conditions does not mean that adultery was non-existent. The Mosaic Law did not punish other illegitimate practices even though God did not approve of them. Some examples include a husband's adultery against his wife (cf. Exod. 20:14), polygamy, and concubinage. Other examples are prostitution except by a Hebrew girl (Deut. 28:18) and incest between an uncle and niece (though the Law did punish incest between an aunt and nephew).

"Defiled"refers to incest, not adultery.

To reduce all references to sexual sin in Deuteronomy 24 to incest is improper. Moses also mentioned adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality in the context (cf. Lev. 18; 20). While marriage does create close family relationships with the in-laws, in Israel this did not rule out marrying an in-law. For example a man could marry his wife's sister after his wife died (Lev. 10:18), and a woman could marry her dead husband's brother. Even if blood relations are in view in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21, this does not mean the first husband and wife had become brother and sister as a result of their marriage.

Problem #4

What was the purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and what are its implications?

View #1: The purpose was to discourage hasty divorce, and the implication is that divorce alone severs the marriage bond and allows legitimate remarriage.

View #2: The purpose was to prevent an incestuous marriage. The implication is that divorce and a subsequent remarriage changes the marriage bond to a "one flesh"relationship of a different kind.

View #3: The purpose was to prevent a man from marrying a woman who had committed adultery against him. The implication is that both divorce and adultery together sever the marriage bond.

Evaluation: View #3 seems best for the following reasons. Normally an adulteress would die (under Mosaic Law) or her husband would divorce her (under Rabbinic law). In the case here the wife who commits adultery against her husband escapes punishment for two reasons. First, Moses viewed her husband as having caused her to be adulterous by divorcing her. Second, post-marital adultery is not the same crime as marital adultery. If the "defilement"had not dissolved or changed the original marriage bond there is no reason the woman could not return to her first husband after her second husband died or divorced her. The law denied the first husband his ex-wife in the same way it would deny him an "outwardly"adulterous wife. An "outwardly"adulterous wife would be one who had committed adultery while married (cf. Matt. 19:9).

Objections

Responses

If the woman was guilty of adultery by remarrying she should suffer death by stoning.

It is the husband's act of divorcing his wife that results in her remarrying and committing adultery. She could remarry under the Mosaic Law. Her adultery was not a violation of a solid marriage covenant but one that divorce had already flawed. Jesus agreed that such action constituted adultery (Matt. 5:12). Only if the wife remarried or had sex with another man could she not return to her first husband.

Marriage is absolutely indissoluble (Gen. 2:18-22).

It is not eternally indissoluble since death ends it (Rom. 7:14; Matt. 22:23-33). Whereas God wants marriage to be permanent He warned against ending it (Matt. 19:6). Thus the breaking of the marriage bond before death is possible. Furthermore if marriage is indissoluble then there is no reason the wife should not return to her first husband. Moreover if marriage is indissoluble a woman who remarries would have two husbands. However the Mosaic Law did not tolerate polyandry. In addition, Jesus said the Samaritan woman "had,"not "has,"five husbands (John 4:18). Finally, if marriage is indissoluble then every remarriage after divorce is bigamous and illegal. It should end in annulment as an incestuous marriage would.

Summary

The student of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 should divide it into two parts between verse 3 and verse 4. Verses 1-3 express the condition and verse 4 the result. If a man divorced his wife the Mosaic Law did not permit him to remarry her if after her divorce from him she had married another man. The "indecency"in view that was the grounds for the divorce was not a specific offense for which the wife was guilty. It was any condition that the husband erroneously judged as suitable grounds for a divorce. A husband could divorce his wife for the flimsiest of reasons in Israel. A divorced woman was free to remarry in Israel. However if she remarried, the law viewed her remarriage as adultery. In the eyes of the law her first husband was responsible for her committing adultery since he had divorced her. Notwithstanding she did not die as an adulteress because the law did not punish this form of adultery with death. Her adultery defiled the woman. She could not return to her first husband if her second husband died or divorced her because she had committed adultery against him. Divorce alone did not break the first marriage bond but both divorce and adultery (sexual relations with a man other than the first husband) did. God did not want the partners in this case to reestablish the first marriage.