When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a letter of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house.
The religious leaders later used this verse against Jesus, asking whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. Read alone it sounds like God approving divorce — until you ask what "some indecency" means, and why the certificate was required.
The text does not tell a man to divorce his wife. It regulates what he must do if he does. That distinction is where the Pharisees misread Moses:
They were wrong when they called Moses' word a commandment. It was only something which Moses allowed.
The written document was not paperwork for the husband's convenience. It was a shield for the wife he was discarding.
This bill of divorce was there to stop a man from treating his wife cruelly — discarding her and yet not leaving her free to marry anyone else.
Having to write it out and have it witnessed also slowed the man down.
The man had to give the woman a bill of divorce. Drawing it up and having it witnessed put some check on his hasty temper.
Jesus traced the allowance to one cause: hardness of heart.
They ignored the positive commands of Moses and spoke only of special rules given to meet their own hardness of heart. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce met their hearts.
The result is a striking reversal of what most people assume about law and grace:
Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself did not show God's heart at all! In this case the law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace lets a person rise above difficulties in a way the law never could.
Marriage did not begin here.
The same lawgiver who allowed divorce had, earlier in the books of Moses, made known the original institution of marriage, and it had no clause permitting divorce. Both passages were God's Word. The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts," and no doubt it was often used without the condition it names: "Because he has found some uncleanness in her" (Deut. 24:1). The second (Gen. 2:24) taught how sacred the tie is, and what it really is. So we are taken back to marriage as God first set it up. We are reminded how God sees it — two made one flesh, joined by Him, and man should not part them.
The verse names a ground for the divorce — "some indecency" in the ESV, "some uncleanness" in older translations. Israel treated that clause as an open door.
Here the woman is protected against hard-hearted man. Only real sin that breaks the marriage tie calls for divorce. Men abused the permission beyond all measure, as if it were a command; any annoyance was enough. But Jehovah hates divorce, as the last prophet testified to the Jews in their evil day.
The law goes on to the case where the woman has married another man and her first husband wants her back.
That would be shameful, for he had already rejected her for what he thought was good reason. This is called an abomination before the LORD. The law is firm and settled on this matter. Yet when the grace of God is known, it can bring the guilty to honest self-judgment. It can overcome the evil in a wonderful way, by a recovery that is both gracious and righteous. Believers too often put themselves in positions so compromising that they look hopeless. Yet remember: no situation is too difficult for the grace of God.
This law also throws light on God's own dealings with Israel:
The whole history of Israel proves that the Lord hates divorce. If He did not, He would have cast Israel off long ago, and many times over. They broke His covenant again and again, and so forfeited every claim on His favour and love. But He bore with them patiently, for He never takes back His gifts and calling. In the prophets He kept reminding them that He was married to them, and so could not cast them off.
- Allowed — Moses did not command divorce here; he permitted it. Reading permission as command was the Pharisees' error.
- Protection — the certificate guarded the woman. A man could not discard her and leave her tied to him. Writing it out also cooled his temper.
- Hardness — the allowance fitted their hearts, not God's. Moses' commands showed God's heart; the divorce rules showed theirs.
- Beginning — Genesis 2 sets the standard: two made one flesh. God joined them, so man must not part them.
- Grace — here the law was the more permissive of the two, yet grace goes further. No situation is too difficult for it. God hates divorce, and He has never cast off His own unfaithful people.
And she shall depart out of his house, and go away, and may become another man's wife.
Verse 2 belongs to one case in the law, running from Deuteronomy 24:1 to 24:4. A man sends his wife away with a certificate, and she is then free to marry again. So was God approving divorce, or only limiting something He never wanted? The Pharisees later put that question to Jesus.
Commentators read this law as God putting limits on an evil He was not yet removing.
The first command here is clearly a toleration of something that could not yet be ended completely. Even so, it places a restraint on it in the meantime. The Lord's own words assure us of this. The law itself treats the divorced woman as in some sense "defiled" by another marriage. And once the bond is broken that way, the law treats it as one that cannot be renewed.
The law names the certificate twice. Does that make divorce something God commanded?
The fact that a writing of divorcement is mentioned twice in no way means that God commanded divorce or even approved of it. In Matthew 19:8 the Lord Jesus explains to the Pharisees that Moses only allowed them to put away their wives because of their hardness of heart… When Israel received the law at Sinai, divorce by a writing of divorcement clearly already existed. Moses left it as it was.
The reason lies in who God was dealing with at the time.
Deuteronomy 24 deals with the question of divorce, and we must say that God made a certain allowance to them here for the wilfulness of man. This is not a matter of opinion, for our Lord Jesus Christ has ruled on it. Nobody can understand the law rightly unless he keeps in mind that in it God is dealing with man as such. So the law holds wisdom and goodness and righteousness. Still, it is man in the flesh under trial, so it is not yet the full display of the divine mind. We find that only when Christ comes.
The wife's freedom to remarry protected her.
This bill of divorce was to guard against a man's cruel treatment of a wife by discarding her while not leaving her free to be married to any other.
The Jews read this allowance as a rule they could use. Their teachers argued only about the reasons that counted.
From this allowance in Deuteronomy 24 the Jews had derived a permission for divorce and a command to give a writing of divorcement… The only disagreement among them was about the reasons for divorce. One school of rabbis taught that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 was adultery or some other form of immoral behaviour. Other rabbis accepted anything a husband did not like about his wife as a reason for divorce.
This was not the first word on marriage in the books of Moses.
The same lawgiver who allowed divorces had already shown, in an earlier part of the same books, how God set up marriage at the beginning. That first account has no clause permitting divorce. Both passages (Deut. 24:1; Gen. 2:23-24) were God's Word. The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts," and people doubtless often used it without the qualifying ground stated in it… The second taught the sacredness and the real character of the tie.
Verse 2 opens a door; verse 4 shuts it. The second marriage makes return to the first husband impossible.
If she did marry another man and he also divorced her, or if he died, then the former husband must not take her back as a wife (v.4). That would be highly improper, for he had already rejected her for what he considered good reason… Believers too often put themselves into positions so compromising that they look hopeless. Yet we must remember that there is no situation too difficult for the grace of God.
Jeremiah turns this law into a picture of God and Israel.
God is nowhere more Himself than in His pitiful mercy to His fallen people. A man could not take back the wife who had deserted him for another. "Israel had committed fornication with many lovers: yet return again to me, says the Lord."
(This quotation follows an older translation. The ESV puts Jeremiah 3:1 as a question: "would you return to me?")
- Tolerated — the law limits an evil here; it does not approve it. Naming the certificate twice is not God's approval of divorce.
- Why — God allowed it for hardness of heart. He was dealing with man in the flesh under trial, and had not yet displayed the full divine mind.
- Protective — the certificate guarded the wife her husband sent away. It left her free to marry again.
- Twisted — the Jews turned the allowance into a command and argued only over how trivial a reason could be.
- Beyond — the closed door of verse 4 shows how serious the tie is. Yet God calls back the people He had every legal right to refuse.
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a letter of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die who took her as his wife;
This verse sits inside one long case, Deuteronomy 24:1–4. A wife has been divorced. She has married again. Now her second husband either turns against her or dies. Two questions follow. Is God commanding divorce here? What happens to a woman moved from one house to another?
Many readers take the repeated mention of a divorce certificate as God's approval of divorce. Commentators answer that the law controls something already happening. It does not approve it.
The certificate of divorce is mentioned twice. That in no way means that God commanded divorce or even approved of it. In Matthew 19:8 the Lord Jesus explains to the Pharisees that Moses only allowed them to divorce their wives because of their hardness of heart... When the people of Israel received the law at Sinai, divorce by a certificate was already a habit.
The document itself slowed an angry man down:
Moses had allowed a man to divorce his wife for any cause, as we see in Deuteronomy 24:1, 3. But the Lord held to God's original rule that what God had joined together, man had no right to separate... The man had to give the woman a certificate of divorce. Drawing it up and having it witnessed was some little check on his hasty temper.
The verse turns on a husband who "hates" his wife. The law steps in on her side, not his.
Here the law protects the woman against a hard-hearted man. Only real sin against the marriage tie calls for divorce. Men abused this permission beyond measure, as if it were a command, and any annoyance was enough. But the Lord hates divorce, as the last prophet told the Jews in their evil day.
Commentators differ on the ground for divorce in verse 1. One writer says it was allowed only "for a physical cause of impediment" (William J Lowe).
Verse 3 sets up verse 4. Once she has belonged to a second man, the first door is shut for good.
The sad fact is that a man often finds an excuse for divorcing his wife. In Israel such a man had to give her a certificate of divorce, which left her free to marry another (vs. 1-3). But if she did marry another man, and he also divorced her or died, then the former husband must not take her back as his wife (v. 4). That would be shameful, since he had already rejected her for what he thought was good reason. The law calls this an "abomination before the Lord."
Verse 4 calls the woman defiled by her second marriage. That one word explains why the first bond can never be renewed.
The first commandment here plainly tolerates what could not yet be removed, and holds it back in the meantime. The Lord's own words assure us of this... This agrees with the law itself, which treats the divorced woman as in some sense "defiled" by another marriage, and treats the broken bond in that case as one that cannot be renewed.
The same lawgiver who recorded this rule had already recorded God's first plan for marriage.
The same lawgiver who allowed divorce had already made known, in an earlier book, God's original setting up of marriage, which had no clause permitting divorce. Both passages (Deut. 24:1; Gen. 2:23-24) were God's Word. The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts," and men no doubt often used it without the qualifying ground stated in it... The second taught the sacredness and the real character of the marriage tie.
One writer notes that "Jeremiah 3:1 is an undoubted reference to Deut. 24:3-4" (The Bible Treasury). The law said the first husband could never take her back. God says otherwise.
God is never more Himself than in His tender mercy to His fallen people. A man could not take back the wife who had left him for another. "Israel had committed fornication with many lovers: yet return again to me, says the Lord."
(Older translations read Jeremiah 3:1 as this appeal; the ESV renders it as the question, "and would you return to me?")
- Toleration — the certificate of divorce holds back an evil already in use. The law tolerated "what could not yet be removed." It never commanded divorce.
- Protection — when a husband "hates" his wife, the law stands between them: "Here the law protects the woman against a hard-hearted man."
- Limit — the toleration has a hard edge. After a second marriage the first husband may never take her back. The law calls that an abomination before the Lord.
- Correction — both Deuteronomy 24 and Genesis 2 are God's Word. One was given for hard hearts. Only the other shows the real character of the tie.
- Grace — what the law forbids a man to do, God does for Israel. She went after other lovers, and He still calls her back to Himself.
her first husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for it is an abomination before Jehovah; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Israel's divorce law ends by shutting a door: a woman who has left one marriage for another can never return to her first husband. The verse calls her "defiled" and calls the reversal "an abomination before the LORD," which raises a bigger question — what does God think of divorce?
The ban falls on the return, not on the first divorce. One writer weighs the man's own earlier choice against it:
If she did marry another man and he also divorced her, or if he died, then the former husband must not take her back as a wife (v.4). This would be very improper, since he had already rejected her for what he thought was a good reason. The law calls this an "abomination before the Lord." If there had been no marriage to another, the case would be different.
The word "defiled" is startling. It describes what the second marriage did to the first tie:
This first command plainly has the character of tolerating something that could not yet be done away with completely, while putting a restraint on it in the meantime. The Lord's own words assure us of this directly. The law itself treats the divorced woman as in some sense "defiled" by another marriage, and treats the broken bond in that case as impossible to renew.
The certificate of divorce is mentioned twice here, and some read that as God endorsing the practice. One writer answers that, and points to a different purpose behind the rule:
So the command in these verses is that a woman who remarried after a divorce from her first husband could never return to him. But the certificate of divorce is mentioned twice, and that in no way means God commanded divorce or even approved of it. In Matthew 19:8 the Lord Jesus explains to the Pharisees that Moses only allowed them to send their wives away because their hearts were hard… Moses left it that way, perhaps even to protect the wife. A hard and spiteful husband could do her great harm if they went on living together.
When the religious leaders quoted this very law to Jesus, He treated it as evidence about them, not about God's heart:
Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case the law allowed more than the grace of God allows! Grace enables a person to rise above difficulties in a way the law never could.
David asked for Michal back, his first wife, after she had been married to another man. One writer weighs whether this law applied to him:
He could also have reasoned that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not apply, since he was not the one who sent her away. But that passage does say the first husband must not take his wife back after another marriage had defiled her (v.4). If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him.
This verse reaches past marriage law. God can blot out the past and still leave a door shut.
When we turn to God we may have spent a large part of our lives in disobedience, and our conversion does not always remove the effects. We may truly want to go back, and still find it impossible to return to the place we were in before we sinned… So going back to a past state may be impossible — and usually will be where divorce has happened. We have only to accept things as they are, and rejoice in the mercy that has blotted out the past and lets us start afresh, with Him.
One writer sets God's mercy beside this rule:
God, however, is nowhere more Himself than in His pitiful mercy to His fallen people. A man could not take back the wife who had deserted him for another. "Israel had committed fornication with many lovers: yet return again to me, says the Lord."
William Kelly (older translation of Jeremiah 3:1; the ESV reads, "would you return to me? declares the LORD.")
- Restraint. The law tolerated a divorce it could not yet abolish, and put limits on it. Once another marriage has happened, the way back to the first husband is shut.
- Defiled. The second marriage makes the first bond impossible to renew. That is why going back is called an abomination.
- Permission. The certificate is mentioned twice, but God never commanded or approved divorce. Christ traced it to hard hearts. Here the law allowed more than grace does.
- Consequence. David asked for Michal back. This verse might have protected him, if he had sought God's wisdom.
- Mercy. Some positions can never be re-entered, even when the past is blotted out. Yet God still calls unfaithful Israel to return to Him.