Deuteronomy 24: What Does It Teach?
by Harry Osborne
May 10, 2009
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance (Deut. 24:1-4, ASV).
One of the passages often discussed when dealing with the subject of divorce and remarriage is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus referred to this passage in the process of declaring His will in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12. For the most part, brethren in the past have understood Jesus' teaching to be the announcement of new law to be binding in the Gospel age, whereas Deuteronomy 24 had been the teaching of Moses which was binding under the old law. However, some today maintain that Jesus' teaching in the above passages is merely a restatement of Moses' teaching, showing the proper meaning of Deuteronomy 24.
View Stated
Those who teach that the fornicating spouse (often called the "guilty party") put away by an innocent mate is free to subsequently remarry with God's approval think they find some help in Deuteronomy 24. They see both parties of the context remarrying following the man sending his wife away with a bill of divorcement "because he hath found some unseemly thing in her." They conclude that the "unseemly thing" ("indecency" in NASV or "uncleanness" in KJV) is fornication and they are satisfied that they have found their proof text. Their problem, however, stems from the fact that they assume the "unseemly thing" is fornication. Some of them have gone to great extremes to seek their "proof." Consider the following:
I want you to look with me for a moment in the book of Ezekiel in chapter 16 of Ezekiel and down at verse 33. "Men give gifts to all harlots, but you give your gifts to all your lovers to bribe them to come to you from every direction for your harlotries" [NASV]. "Harlotries" here is the word used in Deuteronomy 24:1 - the same word that's used there. And so "harlotries" in the Old Testament, as we have seen, is the standard word for "fornication." In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word is porneia, the same word that Jesus used in Matthew 5:32 and in Matthew 19:9 for fornication. So, in Ezekiel it is called "harlotries," in Deuteronomy 24 its called "indecency," in Matthew 5 and 9 [means 19, HRO] its called "fornication." Its all from the same thing. Its all from the same word (Darrell Beane from taped sermon in Renton, WA).
In dealing with the same matter, this brother proceeded to make the following comments and judgments about the motives of brethren who disagree with him on the issue of whether or not the guilty party may remarry:
The reason why many brethren, many Christians, don't want to deal with Deuteronomy 24 is because they want that put away fornicator to suffer. And that's what I've been told, "I think they should suffer." Well, I'm sorry. That's not what God is saying in Deuteronomy 24. And that's why, God is my witness, most people don't want to look at Deuteronomy 24 because here's a put away fornicator being free to marry and they don't like it... They don't want to teach that because they are rebellious. They don't want to accept what God says because they don't like what God says.
As long as one is free to make false statements, misrepresent others and refrain from open examination of his teaching, he can be confident in his error. When such is exposed, that level of confidence is somewhat deflated. It has been years since I offered this brother the opportunity to discuss this issue openly, but he has remained unwilling to do so. Who is it that does not "want to deal with Deuteronomy 24"? Let us notice a few problems our brother must face if he deals with the facts.
Playing Loose with Words
The Hebrew word, 'ervah, in Deuteronomy 24:1 is defined as nudity or a matter of shame by most lexicographers. It is definitely not the standard Hebrew word used to denote fornication. The exact phrase found in this passage is used one other time in close proximity, Deuteronomy 23:14. In that place, it clearly refers to human feces. Obviously, that is not parallel to fornication. The translators of the Septuagint noted the distinction between this word translated with the Greek word aschemon ("shameful, unpresentable, indecent") and that of fornication which was translated with the Greek word porneia.
Another problematic fact for our brother is that word used for "harlotries" in Ezekiel 16:33 is not the same as the word for the "unseemly thing" of Deuteronomy 24:1, either in the Hebrew or the Greek. The Hebrew word used in Ezekiel 16:33 is taznut, a form never used outside of two chapters in Ezekiel. The root word, however, is the standard Hebrew word used to denote fornication in the Old Testament. Thus, the Septuagint translates it with the Greek word porneia. Porneia is the word used by Jesus to denote fornication in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The Holy Spirit who inspired these two passages used two different words in Hebrew to denote two different ideas. The translators of the two passages in both Greek and English used two different phrases in to denote the two different ideas. Commentators on the two passages consistently note the same distinction. Yet, one upholding error claims they are the same words and the same ideas. Error is furthered by falsehood, but truth needs only open investigation!
Old Testament Law for Fornicator
The Old Testament law is very plain about the requirements in cases of adultery. It says, "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:10). When one is put to death, remarriage is not a possibility. The law takes up various situations wherein the adultery may be discovered, but the resulting sentence is consistently given as death. For instance, there may have been cases where witnesses to the adultery existed (Deut. 22:22f). In that case, the two or three witnesses necessary to execute a sinner were present and the sentence was to be carried out without further clarification. However, it is more likely that the majority of cases involved no witnesses. What was to be done in those cases? Numbers 5:11-31 answers that question. The Lord gave "the law of jealous" requiring the husband to take the wife before the priest when the husband suspected his wife of adultery. There she was required to drink the "water of bitterness." If she was guilty, her body swelled and her thighs fell off which suggests that she died. If she had survived such and someone wanted to marry the swelled, legless woman, there would then exist a plurality of witnesses to her guilt. What would then happen? Obviously, she must be put to death as the law required. In any case, the adulteress was put to death! Thus, the woman of Deuteronomy 24:1 could not have been one who was put away because of her adultery. Those who attempt to suggest otherwise may resort to extravagant means to bolster their teaching, but the clear facts show that they are wrong.
God does not reward put away fornicators by giving them further chances to wreck other homes and bring heartache upon other innocent victims. God has always acted to protect the sanctity of the marriage relationship and the resulting home. God continues to do so today through the law given by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-12)
<
Back to Article List |
