Why does Deuteronomy 24:1 permit divorce if marriage is intended to be lifelong? Passage Text “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her, and sends her away from his house, and if, after leaving his house, she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the second man hates her, writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her, and sends her away, or if he dies, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to remarry her after she has been defiled. For that would be detestable to the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Intent of Creation: Marriage as a Lifelong Covenant Genesis 2:24 establishes the divine ideal: “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This unity is reiterated by Christ Himself (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9). Scripture presents marriage as covenant, mirroring Yahweh’s unfailing covenant with His people (Ephesians 5:31-32). The permanence principle is therefore foundational and unchanging. Divorce in the Mosaic Corpus: A Regulated Concession, Not a Command Deuteronomy 24:1 does not authorize divorce as a positive good; it regulates an existing human practice caused by hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8). Moses addresses the fallout of sin in Israelite society—he is legislating damage control, not redefining God’s standard. Hardness of Heart and Progressive Revelation Jesus interprets Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a concession: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). The Mosaic text is thus subordinate to the creational norm and Christ’s clarification. Divine revelation progresses from creation (Genesis 2), through concession (Deuteronomy 24), to consummation in Christ (Matthew 19). Protection of the Woman and Social Justice Concerns 1. A “certificate of divorce” (sefer keritut) formally released the woman, safeguarding her from the stigma of adultery and enabling lawful remarriage, essential for survival in an agrarian patriarchy. 2. The prohibition against the first husband remarrying her after a second marriage (24:4) protected her from exploitation and commodification. 3. By requiring a legal document, the law restrained impulsive dismissals and introduced due process, anticipating later prophetic concern for the vulnerable (Malachi 2:16). Ancient Near Eastern Parallels and Contrast The Code of Hammurabi (§§ 128-131) and Nuzi tablets illustrate permissive divorce cultures with minimal female protection. Deuteronomy’s demand for a formal writ places Israel’s law far above its contemporaries in moral concern. Excavations at Tell el-Amarna and marriage contracts from the 14th-13th centuries BC corroborate the period’s legal milieu, demonstrating the biblical text’s cultural embeddedness yet ethical distinctiveness. Interpretive Debate over “Some Indecency” (ʿerwat dābār) 1. Shammai school (1st-cent. AD) restricted it to sexual immorality short of adultery. 2. Hillel school broadened it to any displeasing act. Jesus sides with neither, elevating the standard to indissoluble union except for porneia (Matthew 19:9). The debate proves that by Christ’s day Deuteronomy was viewed as concessionary, not prescriptive. Canonical Harmony: Old and New Testament Witness • Malachi 2:14-16: Yahweh denounces faithless divorce, “I hate divorce.” • Hosea’s prophetic marriage embodies restorative covenant love in spite of betrayal. • 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 echoes Christ: “A wife must not separate from her husband.” • Deuteronomy 24 therefore functions as temporary containment, not timeless ideal. Theological Rationale: Upholding Holiness in a Fallen Order God’s holiness demands covenant fidelity; human fallenness necessitates legal boundaries. By regulating the lesser evil, the Torah minimizes societal chaos while pointing forward to the transformative power of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), realized in the risen Christ who empowers heart obedience (Romans 8:3-4). Archaeological Corroboration of Mosaic Matrimonial Practice The 5th-century BC Elephantine papyri include Jewish divorce certificates resembling Deuteronomy’s formula, confirming long-standing Israelite legal tradition. Seal impressions (bullae) from Lachish show administrative mechanisms capable of issuing such writs as early as the divided monarchy, lending historical credibility. Pastoral Implications: Mercy and Truth United Scripture holds sacred both the sanctity of marriage and compassion for victims of sin. Churches must: • Teach Genesis paradigm fidelity. • Offer restoration to repentant spouses. • Protect the oppressed, reflecting the original protective intent of Deuteronomy 24. Summary Deuteronomy 24:1 does not endorse divorce as God’s desire; it mitigates sin’s consequences within a fallen culture, safeguards vulnerable spouses, narrows grounds for dissolution, and anticipates Christ’s definitive teaching. Marriage remains a lifelong covenant; the Mosaic provision is a temporary, protective concession superseded by the redemptive work and instruction of Jesus Christ. |
    |