Commentari biblici

In this chapter we have, I. The toleration of divorce, De 24:1-4. II. A discharge of new-married men from the war, De 24:5. III. Laws concerning pledges, De 24:6,10-13,17. IV. Against man-stealing, De 24:7. V. Concerning the leprosy, De 24:8,9. VI. Against the injustice of masters towards their servants, De 24:14,15. Judges in capital causes (De 24:16), and civil concerns, De 24:17,18. VII. Of charity to the poor, De 24:19, etc.

The case of a divorced wife, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. No man shall be obliged to undertake any public service for the first year of his marriage, Deuteronomy 24:5. The mill-stones shall not be taken as a pledge, Deuteronomy 24:6. The man-stealer shall be put to death, Deuteronomy 24:7. Concerning cases of leprosy, Deuteronomy 24:8, Deuteronomy 24:9. Of receiving pledges, and returning those of the poor before bed-time, Deuteronomy 24:10-13. Of servants and their hire, Deuteronomy 24:14, Deuteronomy 24:15. Parents and children shall not be put to death for each other, Deuteronomy 24:16. Of humanity to the stranger, fatherless, widow, and bondman, Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:18. Gleanings of the harvest, etc., to be left for the poor, stranger, widow, fatherless, etc., Deuteronomy 24:19-22.

INTRODUCTION TO Deuteronomy 24

This chapter contains various laws concerning divorces, Deuteronomy 24:1; the discharge of a newly married man from war and business, Deuteronomy 24:5; about taking pledges, Deuteronomy 24:6; man stealing, Deuteronomy 24:7; the plague of leprosy, Deuteronomy 24:8; and giving servants their hire in due time, Deuteronomy 24:14; concerning doing justice in capital cases, and towards the stranger, fatherless, and widow, Deuteronomy 24:16; and of charity to the poor, in allowing them the forgotten sheaf, and the gleanings of their oliveyards and vineyards, Deuteronomy 24:19.

Of Re-marriage after Divorce

If a man, for some fault, divorce his wife, and she marry another, who in turn divorces her or dies (Deuteronomy 24:1-3), her former husband may not take her back, this would be an abomination, etc. (4).—EVV. do not render the Heb. constr. The law is one conditional sentence, of which the apodosis begins with Deuteronomy 24:4. It is not a law instituting divorce or prescribing the procedure though it states this as part of the special case which it puts (and here may be quoting from an earlier code). It is a law for a particular purpose, the prohibition of a man’s re-marriage to a wife whom he has divorced and who, meantime, has been another’s. It is not in the direct form of address, nor marked by D’s phrases till its close; and therefore, like others similarly constructed (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:13-21), which it further resembles in its opening, and in the phrases hate her, he may not, and put or send her away, it may all be an older law, except for D’s closing formula. The quotation of the law in Jeremiah 3:1 does not prove that the prophet had also the closing formula before him, for the term land which the Heb. text has there, instead of wife, may be, as the LXX shows, the mistake of a copying scribe.

Among the Semites a man paid a price for his bride, Heb. môhar, who thus was his property and he alone had the right of divorce. There were exceptions. Among the Babylonians sometimes no môhar was paid, and the wife for special reasons could divorce her husband (Johns, op. cit. 142 f.); among the later Jews the wife might divorce if the husband was a leper, or on similar grounds (Mishna, ‘Kethuboth,’ Deuteronomy 7:10); and an Arab husband frequently divorced his wife on her own importunity (cp. the case cited in Ar. Des. i. 232) or under pressure from her relatives, who returned the môhar. But the payment of the môhar and the husband’s sole right to divorce were the general rule. Semitic lawgivers accept the latter as an existing institution and regulate it, usually in the wife’s interest. By Ḫammurabi the divorced concubine has her dowry returned with maintenance for her children (§ 137). A wife may be divorced for barrenness but takes the môhar and her marriage portion, or, if there is no môhar, a sum according to her husband’s rank (138–140). An evil wife may be divorced without compensation, or remain a slave in her husband’s house while he marries another (141). Disease is not sufficient ground for divorce; the husband may take a second wife but must either maintain the first in his own house or, if she will, send her to her father’s with her marriage portion (148 f.). And we have already seen (on Deuteronomy 22:22) that remarriage was regulated in case of the man’s desertion. Among the ancient Arabs divorce was allowed and the divorced couple could re-marry, but this the Ḳoran regulates by forbidding re-marriage till the wife has first married another and been divorced by him—the opposite of D’s law but apparently with the same intention of making divorce a more serious and difficult affair than it was popularly conceived to be. Among the Arabs of to-day a woman is lightly passed to another husband, Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 237, 465, etc., etc.; Jennings-Bramley, PEFQ, 1905, 137, 213 ff.: ‘I do not remember having met a man who had not divorced several wives.’ He states this facility of divorce as one reason for the absence of intrigues among them, cp. 218. If a wife for good cause run to her relatives, her father returns the môhar, 1907, 25. Arabs E. of the Dead Sea permit a divorced couple to re-marry without requiring the wife to be meantime married and divorced by another man, if a victim is first sacrificed (Janssen, Rev. Bib. 1906, January).

Similarly in Israel. No O.T. oracle or law institutes divorce. But the husband’s right of divorce is accepted or permitted—cp. our Lord’s teaching, Matthew 19:8—and is put under regulations of which those in D are in the interest of the wife and either punish the husband for his evil behaviour to her by withdrawing the right to divorce, Deuteronomy 22:19; Deuteronomy 22:29, or ensure deliberation on the husband’s part before he completes the act, by subjecting it to the condition of a good reason and of legal procedure, yet without lessening his responsibility, Deuteronomy 24:1 ff. The other codes have nothing similar in temper to this. H forbids a priest to marry a divorcée and allows the divorced daughter of a priest to return to her father’s house, Leviticus 21:7; Leviticus 21:14; Leviticus 22:13; P prescribes that the vow of a divorcée shall stand, Numbers 30:9 (10). The second marriage of a divorcée is nowhere sanctioned, not even in Deuteronomy 24:2, where (as the Heb. syntax makes plain) it is merely a fact in the case legislated for. But this shows that the practice was usual just as among the Arabs, and in the earlier history there is an instance of the remarriage of a divorced couple—David and Michal—after her marriage to another man (1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Samuel 25:44, 2 Samuel 3:14 ff.)[147]. Steuernagel thinks that, as among the Arabs under the Ḳoran, so in Israel the marriage of a divorced wife to another man and her divorce from him had been regarded as the necessary condition of her re-marriage to her former husband, and that D’s law means that even if she has meantime been married to another, the former husband must not take her back. But for the existence of such a condition in Israelite practice there is no evidence. We must be satisfied with this—that D’s law tends to make divorce a much more serious affair than it was usually conceived to be in Israel, and so to check the too-frequent practice of it by diminishing the possibilities of re-marriage which tempted men to divorce their wives with a light heart. D would forbid that easy passage of a woman between one man and another, which seems to have often happened in Israel, and which meant the degradation or defilement of the woman herself. If such be the motive of the law it is in harmony with D’s other measures for the elevation of woman, Deuteronomy 5:21, etc.

[147] No legal divorce is mentioned in this case. And there was none in the case of Hosea (1–3) which on other grounds is of too special a nature to be relevant here.

De 24:1-22.

OF DIVORCES.

1-4. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes--It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [LANE]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses

(Mt 19:8).

But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.

In this and the next chapter certain particular rights and duties, domestic, social, and civil, are treated. The cases brought forward have often no definite connection, and seem selected in order to illustrate the application of the great principles of the Law in certain important events and circumstances.

These four verses contain only one sentence, and should be rendered thus: If a man hath taken a wife, etc., and given her a bill of divorcement and Deuteronomy 24:2 if she has departed out of his house and become another man's wife; and Deuteronomy 24:3 if the latter husband hates her, then Deuteronomy 24:4 her former husband, etc.

Moses neither institutes nor enjoins divorce. The exact spirit of the passage is given in our Lord's words to the Jews', "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives" Matthew 19:8. Not only does the original institution of marriage as recorded by Moses Genesis 2:24 set forth the perpetuity of the bond, but the verses before us plainly intimate that divorce, while tolerated for the time, contravenes the order of nature and of God. The divorced woman who marries again is "defiled" Deuteronomy 24:4, and is grouped in this particular with the adulteress (compare Leviticus 18:20). Our Lord then was speaking according to the spirit of the law of Moses when he declared, "Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" Matthew 19:9. He was speaking too not less according to the mind of the prophets (compare Malachi 2:14-16). But Moses could not absolutely put an end to a practice which was traditional, and common to the Jews with other Oriental nations. His aim is therefore to regulate and thus to mitigate an evil which he could not extirpate.

Some uncleanness - Any cause of dislike, for this great latitude of meaning the fact itself authorizes us to adopt, for it is certain that a Jew might put away his wife for any cause that seemed good to himself; and so hard were their hearts, that Moses suffered this; and we find they continued this practice even to the time of our Lord, who strongly reprehended them on the account, and showed that such license was wholly inconsistent with the original design of marriage; see Matthew 5:31 (note), etc.; Matthew 19:3 (note), etc., and the notes there.

When a man hath taken a wife and married her,.... That is, when a man has made choice of a woman for his wife, and has obtained her consent, and the consent of her parents; and has not only betrothed her, but taken her home, and consummated the marriage:

and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes; is not agreeable to him, he takes no delight in her person, nor pleasure in her company and conversation; but, on the contrary, his affections are alienated from her, and he cannot bear the sight of her:

because he hath found some uncleanness in her; something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and cruel to her; so that her life was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, both for the badness of the man's heart, and in favour of the woman, that she might be freed from such rigorous usage. This word "uncleanness" does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in Leviticus 18:6; because that was punishable with death, when it could be proved; and where there was only a suspicion of it, the husband might make use of the bitter water: though the house of Shammai seem to take it in this sense; for they say a man might not divorce his wife unless he found her in some unclean thing, something dishonest and wicked, and which they ground upon these words; but the house of Hillell say, if she burnt his food, or spoiled it by over salting, or over roasting it; and Akiba says, even if he found another woman more beautiful than her or more agreeable to him. But neither his sense, nor that of the house of Shammai, are approved of by the Jews in general, but that of the house of Hillell (m); and they suppose a man might divorce his wife for any ill qualities of mind in her, or for any ill or impudent behaviour of hers; as if her husband saw her go abroad with her head uncovered, and spinning in the streets, and so showing her naked arms to men; or having her garments slit on both sides; or washing in a bath with men, or where men use to wash, and talking with every man, and joking with young men; or her voice is sonorous and noisy; or any disease of body, as the leprosy, and the like; or any blemishes, as warts, are upon her; or any disagreeable smell that might arise from any parts of the body, from sweat, or a stinking breath (n):

then let him write her a bill of divorcement; Jarchi says, this is a command upon him to divorce her, because she finds not favour in his eyes; and so the Jews (o) generally understand it, and so they did in the time of Christ, Matthew 19:7; whereas it was no more than a permission, for reasons before given. A man might not dismiss his wife by word of mouth, which might be done hastily, in a passion, of which he might soon repent; but by writing, which was to be drawn up in form; and, as the Targum of Jonathan, before the sanhedrim, in a court of judicature, which required time, during which he might think more of it, and either recede from his purpose before the case was finished, or do it upon mature deliberation; and a firm resolution. The Jews say (p) many things of the witnesses before whom it was to be written and sealed, and at what time, and upon what, and with what it was to be written, and who were proper persons to write it or not, in a treatise of theirs, called Gittin, or divorces. In the Hebrew text this bill is called "a bill of cutting off" (q); because the marriage was rescinded, and man and wife were cut off and separated from one another for ever; of the form of such a bill; see Gill on Matthew 5:31,

and give it in her hand; which was to be done before witnesses, and which is one of the ten things requisite to a divorce (r); though it made no difference whether it was delivered by himself, or by a messenger; or whether to her, or to her deputy, appointed by her before witnesses; or whether it was put into her hand, or in her bosom, so be it that she was but possessed of it; with which agrees the Jewish canon,"if he casts a bill to his wife, and she is within the house, or within the court, she is divorced; if he casts it into her bosom, or into her work basket, she is divorced (s):"

and send her out of his house; which was a visible token and public declaration of her divorce; besides, were she to be continued in his house afterwards, it would give suspicion of cohabitation, which after a divorce was not lawful.

(m) Misn. Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (n) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 90. 1. 2. Misn. Cetubot, c. 7. sect. 6, 7. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (o) T. Bab. Gittin, ut supra. (n)) (p) Misn. Gittin, c. 2. sect. 2, 3, 4, 5. (q) "libellum excidii", Montanus, Fagius; "succisionis", Munster; "abscissionis", Tigurine version. (r) See Ainsworth in loc. (s) Misn. Gittin, c. 8. sect. 1.