Deuteronomy 24:1, commentary and pictures

Moses required a husband who put away his wife to give her a written bill of divorcement in her hand and send her from his house. The stated ground of some uncleanness was stretched so widely that divorce became easy to obtain even for frivolous preference. The allowance was a concession to blindness and hardness of heart to check a common evil, not God's original design from creation where husband and wife become one and are not to be separated. Christ referred to this Mosaic provision and set aside its broad allowance as of no authority against the enduring principles of God's moral law. He teaches that divorce with freedom to marry again is permitted only for fornication or adultery, otherwise the divorcing husband causes adultery and commits it by remarrying, while the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death.

Wording and Historical Setting

The law required a husband who put away his wife to write her a bill of divorcement, place it in her hand, and send her out of his house. It was a formal written certificate of divorce given when she found no favour in his eyes. The bill stated the nature of the trouble, so that a second man knowing the cause of complaint could willingly take her if he chose. Another teaching holds that in later practice the document stated no reason for the separation but simply declared the woman discharged from her former connection and free to marry whom she pleased.

In that later practice the document was called Gett, written on parchment by a notary in the presence of one or more rabbis. It was limited to no more than twelve lines. In Greek the bill is called biblion apostasion, the book of apostasy. Apostasy there signifies rebellion, withdrawal, turning away, despising, and proving untrue, like a false-hearted companion toward one with whom lifelong union had been solemnly promised. The very words of this divorce law were quoted directly by Jesus.

The verse belongs to Moses' review of the law for Israel's new generation. It is part of the special instruction in the books of Moses concerning marriage and remarriage. It is an example of Israel's social and national laws, which were binding on Israel as a nation but not on later peoples as law, though their underlying principles remain applicable.

The provision supplies the background for Joseph's thought of putting Mary away privately when he learned of her apparent condition. Divorce was then readily and easily obtained. The stated cause, some uncleanness, was construed by the rabbis so broadly that it could serve as a frivolous excuse for divorce. It could cover even a man's simply preferring another woman to his wife.

In the wider rule of the passage, an Israelite man who could not live with a captive woman he had married was required to release her free rather than sell her as a slave, like an Israelite woman. A wife who has left her first husband and married another man may not return to the first husband, because this brings shame and confusion. If neither former spouse has married someone else they may be reconciled and marry again. The bar on taking back a wife who has married another serves as a check on this destructive violation of the marriage relation.

Concession and Enduring Marriage Law

Moses' regulation of putting away a wife was a concession to human blindness and hardness of heart, not an expression of the original principles for marriage and family. From the beginning it was not so, for God's design at creation joins husband and wife as one, and what God has joined is not to be separated. Divorce was a condition God suffered under Israel's commonwealth, subject to restrictions, not part of His original divine purpose.

God regulated the putting away of wives because it had become so common that some rule had to be made to lessen the evil. The requirement of a written bill stating the nature of the trouble, so a second man knowing the cause could willingly take her, and the rule in verse 4 barring a former husband from taking back a wife who has married another man, served as a check on this destructive violation of the marriage relation. That prohibition expresses God's enduring judgment on such conduct.

These provisions tolerate conduct that falls short of God's will and give people opportunity to learn His will. When people receive light God requires them to repent, and God's original design is the rule for the present time.

Christ refers to this Mosaic provision in Matthew 5:31 and declares it of no authority as against the enduring principles of God's moral law, setting aside its broad allowance. What Moses permitted for slight cause by a written certificate, distinguished from the rule against adultery, Jesus disallowed except for sexual immorality.

A man may divorce his wife and marry again only in the case of fornication, sexual immorality, or adultery. Otherwise he commits adultery and causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries the divorced woman also commits adultery. The marriage bond unites two and is not to be broken except for that cause, and the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death.

The verse belongs to the law of Moses, the ceremonial law, not the Ten Commandments; it allowed putting away for very slight cause and remained obligatory until the cross. Its contrast with the moral law proves the difference between what remains and what is abolished, so Christ's restriction applies in the gospel dispensation after the cross. Those who held it as a special civil rule taught that under Israel's commonwealth it was granted because of hardness of heart, was neither part of the Ten Commandments nor of the ceremonial system, and allowed conduct that violated the seventh commandment.

Modern state laws allowing divorce for many causes are similar in looseness to that old allowance. Christians must not be satisfied to stand legally justified by such laws but must be morally justified on Scripture ground.