How was the woman defiled? Deuteronomy 24:1-4 explained from a No Exception position

[PeterDona]

Hi folks,
I struggled with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for a long time The passage has a tendency to show up in divorce-remarriage debates because it could seem that it discusses - and permits - remarriage.

My struggle was actually not so much if it allowed for "remarriage", which I believe that it does in such a limited scenario as to be totally irrelevant to todays christianity. But I struggled to make sense of why it is exactly that the woman is not allowed to go back to her former husband, and why that would be an abomination.

You see, if there is something in a passage that you can not explain, chances are bigger that you have not yet the correct take on the passage. If you can explain everything, it does not prove that you are right, but it certainly strengthens your position.

Until now I never heard anyone explain how it is that the woman was defiled, and how it was that it was an abomination, and how it was that such an action would cause the land to sin. And lo, yesterday the solution came to mind while reading the discussion in a youtube video.

Let me quote Deuteronomy 24:4 in the KJV+Strongs
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So my explanation begins with the passage "that she is defiled" which is a translation from a single hebrew word - tame, strongs 2930. This word has the meaning of (1)"to become unclean" and (2)"to be declared unclean". My argument is that even though the 2 meanings are very close, and usually it is meaning 1 that is used in Bible translations, it is actually meaning 2 that will make the passage make sense.

So let me insert meaning 2 into the passage, and explain the implications
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she has been declared unclean; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The idea is that she has been declared unclean by her first husband (not the 2nd), and that the reason why she cannot return to her first husband lies not in the status of her 2nd husband, whether he died or divorced her (deut 24:3), but in the fact that her first husband declared her unclean.

So the scenario is that the whole passage applies only to the very special situation where a husband on the night of the consummation of the marriage finds out that his wife is not a virgin. And that he is willing to go through the heavy process of having her declared unclean in order to get a legal divorce from her, almost the only kind of divorce that explicitly legalises that she can marry another man.

And that is why it would be an abomination to the Lord, that he treated her in such a way, and then allow her back. And that is why it would cause the land to sin if it was allowed, because it would open up for the sinful practise of divorce and remarriage while a former spouse is still alive, thereby polluting the one-flesh relation.

So it all makes sense.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hi folks,
I struggled with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for a long time The passage has a tendency to show up in divorce-remarriage debates because it could seem that it discusses - and permits - remarriage.

My struggle was actually not so much if it allowed for "remarriage", which I believe that it does in such a limited scenario as to be totally irrelevant to todays christianity. But I struggled to make sense of why it is exactly that the woman is not allowed to go back to her former husband, and why that would be an abomination.

You see, if there is something in a passage that you can not explain, chances are bigger that you have not yet the correct take on the passage. If you can explain everything, it does not prove that you are right, but it certainly strengthens your position.

Until now I never heard anyone explain how it is that the woman was defiled, and how it was that it was an abomination, and how it was that such an action would cause the land to sin. And lo, yesterday the solution came to mind while reading the discussion in a youtube video.

Let me quote Deuteronomy 24:4 in the KJV+Strongs
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So my explanation begins with the passage "that she is defiled" which is a translation from a single hebrew word - tame, strongs 2930. This word has the meaning of (1)"to become unclean" and (2)"to be declared unclean". My argument is that even though the 2 meanings are very close, and usually it is meaning 1 that is used in Bible translations, it is actually meaning 2 that will make the passage make sense.

So let me insert meaning 2 into the passage, and explain the implications
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she has been declared unclean; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The idea is that she has been declared unclean by her first husband (not the 2nd), and that the reason why she cannot return to her first husband lies not in the status of her 2nd husband, whether he died or divorced her (deut 24:3), but in the fact that her first husband declared her unclean.

So the scenario is that the whole passage applies only to the very special situation where a husband on the night of the consummation of the marriage finds out that his wife is not a virgin. And that he is willing to go through the heavy process of having her declared unclean in order to get a legal divorce from her, almost the only kind of divorce that explicitly legalises that she can marry another man.

And that is why it would be an abomination to the Lord, that he treated her in such a way, and then allow her back. And that is why it would cause the land to sin if it was allowed, because it would open up for the sinful practise of divorce and remarriage while a former spouse is still alive, thereby polluting the one-flesh relation.

So it all makes sense.

The way I understand the laws of God, is its designed to not objectify people and promote mutual respect compared to documents that would be comparable in that era.
.
One thing to look at is that the land would be sinning in this sense, some analysis of this might be the right direction as humans in the sight of God are made of the same materials as the earth.
.
The sense I get as to what is "wrong" about the situation described is the degree of disrespect given to the woman in saying "you're not good enough so let's get divorced" and then later on decides he wants her back after another man has taken her as his wife. Given that many of the animals that came out of the earth in the creation have one mate for life ... perhaps this is an attribute that we're not as attuned to since our bodies are affected by decay?
.
I know I'm missing something here, but looking at the attribute of earth in scripture might be key to digging deeper here.

 

[PeterDona]

The sense I get as to what is "wrong" about the situation described is the degree of disrespect given to the woman in saying "you're not good enough so let's get divorced"

Yes, I am on the same track, only do I believe that the offence is much stronger. I believe the whole passage applies only to the situation where a man has married a woman, and on the wedding night he finds out she is not a virgin, and therefore rejects her. That would fit with Jesus' comment on the passage in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Compare this with Deuteronomy 22:13-31 where there is an imperative to stone a woman who is not a virgin. I am not sure how the woman in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 could escape stoning. In what situation could a woman be declared unclean according to Deuteronomy 24:1 yet escape stoning according to Deuteronomy 22:21?

 

[SkyWriting]

And that is why it would be an abomination to the Lord, that he treated her in such a way, and then allow her back. And that is why it would cause the land to sin if it was allowed, because it would open up for the sinful practise of divorce and remarriage while a former spouse is still alive, thereby polluting the one-flesh relation.

Kind of. The sin is the first husband discarding the wife, then grabbing her back again like a yo-yo.

NET Bible
her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the LORD. You must not bring guilt on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

 

[PeterDona]

NET Bible
her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after she has become ritually impure

My point is that I want to change this translation into a translation that says, "her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after he has declared her ritually impure". And that I believe that I can do so in line with the hebrew text and the intention of the text.

 

[SkyWriting]

My point is that I want to change this translation into a translation that says, "her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after he has declared her ritually impure". And that I believe that I can do so in line with the hebrew text and the intention of the text.

I dunno. 100's of language scholors have already looked over the original manuscripts.

Deuteronomy 24:4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, I am on the same track, only do I believe that the offence is much stronger. I believe the whole passage applies only to the situation where a man has married a woman, and on the wedding night he finds out she is not a virgin, and therefore rejects her. That would fit with Jesus' comment on the passage in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Compare this with Deuteronomy 22:13-31 where there is an imperative to stone a woman who is not a virgin. I am not sure how the woman in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 could escape stoning. In what situation could a woman be declared unclean according to Deuteronomy 24:1 yet escape stoning according to Deuteronomy 22:21?

The law was redemptive for its time, having a law at all in a society was redemptive after the ages of death and fear. I suspect that something has been redeemed to the point that I simply cannot understand the good some of the laws actually represented at the time ... because I cannot image how evil it was.
.
It's also hard to understand, because Israel did not actually apply the laws consistently as is the example in Matthew. The man who accused her was just as guilty.

 

[Cuddles333]

The incredible thing about this passage is that it shows that the only people of world allowed to divorce their spouse were Israelite men. The Gentiles (non-Jews) were given no ordinance concerning divorce. Therefore, if they did divorce, they sinned in the eyes of God.

The same today. The non-Christians have no ordinance from God concerning divorce. Christians only have the exception of their non-believing spouse making the believer choose Christ or them. If Christ is chosen, then divorce will result. Thus releasing the believer from the marriage bond in the eyes of God. (1Cor 7:14-15) Mt. 19:9. was only possible up until the 3rd century A. D.

Now, just think how many non-Christian's marriages are invalid in God's eyes today.

 

[PeterDona]

Christians only have the exception of their non-believing spouse making the believer choose Christ or them. If Christ is chosen, then divorce will result. Thus releasing the believer from the marriage bond in the eyes of God. (1Cor 7:14-15)

As I stated in the threadstarter, I am at the no-exception position. You bring up the "erasmian exception" of 1 cor 7:15, which I believe to be a mistaken understanding of the passage. I will not expand my view here, but you can pm me if you are interested.

 

[PeterDona]

I dunno. 100's of language scholors have already looked over the original manuscripts.

Deuteronomy 24:4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Yes, I can see how all translations give the interpretation which I decided to contest in this thread. I believe that my translation suggestion clears up the meaning, is in line with the hebrew text, and makes for that the verse deut24:4 is much more understandable.

However my translation suggestion does change the weight of the passage, as I stated in the first post. The defiling of the woman was done as a part of getting her out of the first marriage, and not as a part of going into the second marriage.

It would also mean that the passage can not be used as an argument for staying in a marriage #2 if a first spouse #1 is still living. So this is where the real controversial practical application comes in. I have seen pastors advocating to "stay in the situation you are in" and I have seen this verse used to support such a stance. So the conclusion will be that this verse can not be used to support such a stance.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, I can see how all translations give the interpretation which I decided to contest in this thread. I believe that my translation suggestion clears up the meaning, is in line with the hebrew text, and makes for that the verse deut24:4 is much more understandable.

However my translation suggestion does change the weight of the passage, as I stated in the first post. The defiling of the woman was done as a part of getting her out of the first marriage, and not as a part of going into the second marriage.

It would also mean that the passage can not be used as an argument for staying in a marriage #2 if a first spouse #1 is still living. So this is where the real controversial practical application comes in. I have seen pastors advocating to "stay in the situation you are in" and I have seen this verse used to support such a stance. So the conclusion will be that this verse can not be used to support such a stance.

I would agree that the defiling

was not as a part of going into the second marriage.

 

[SkyWriting]

I would agree that the defiling was not as a part of going into the second marriage.

And I'd like to add that if we "Do unto others, as we would have them do unto us."
Then women and men cannot be treated differently.

I didn't write the rules. I'm just as upset about it as you are.

 

[PeterDona]

And I'd like to add that if we "Do unto others, as we would have them do unto us."
Then women and men cannot be treated differently.

I didn't write the rules. I'm just as upset about it as you are.

Well, we should be so happy that Christ came and brought us into a new living relation with God. What I found astounding was when I read in hebrews how the blood of Christ was able to cleanse from even defilement. That is just amazing. All glory to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. The blood of Christ is our hope !

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

Hi folks,
I struggled with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for a long time The passage has a tendency to show up in divorce-remarriage debates because it could seem that it discusses - and permits - remarriage.

My struggle was actually not so much if it allowed for "remarriage", which I believe that it does in such a limited scenario as to be totally irrelevant to todays christianity. But I struggled to make sense of why it is exactly that the woman is not allowed to go back to her former husband, and why that would be an abomination.

You see, if there is something in a passage that you can not explain, chances are bigger that you have not yet the correct take on the passage. If you can explain everything, it does not prove that you are right, but it certainly strengthens your position.

Until now I never heard anyone explain how it is that the woman was defiled, and how it was that it was an abomination, and how it was that such an action would cause the land to sin. And lo, yesterday the solution came to mind while reading the discussion in a youtube video.

Let me quote Deuteronomy 24:4 in the KJV+Strongs
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So my explanation begins with the passage "that she is defiled" which is a translation from a single hebrew word - tame, strongs 2930. This word has the meaning of (1)"to become unclean" and (2)"to be declared unclean". My argument is that even though the 2 meanings are very close, and usually it is meaning 1 that is used in Bible translations, it is actually meaning 2 that will make the passage make sense.

So let me insert meaning 2 into the passage, and explain the implications
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she has been declared unclean; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The idea is that she has been declared unclean by her first husband (not the 2nd), and that the reason why she cannot return to her first husband lies not in the status of her 2nd husband, whether he died or divorced her (deut 24:3), but in the fact that her first husband declared her unclean.

So the scenario is that the whole passage applies only to the very special situation where a husband on the night of the consummation of the marriage finds out that his wife is not a virgin. And that he is willing to go through the heavy process of having her declared unclean in order to get a legal divorce from her, almost the only kind of divorce that explicitly legalises that she can marry another man.

And that is why it would be an abomination to the Lord, that he treated her in such a way, and then allow her back. And that is why it would cause the land to sin if it was allowed, because it would open up for the sinful practise of divorce and remarriage while a former spouse is still alive, thereby polluting the one-flesh relation.

So it all makes sense.

The whole of scripture is the narrative to our spiritual journey of soul/process taking place within. It starts in Genesis with God calling the light out of the darkness. Man was created one who God placed in a slumber to take out a woman (helper, and the two shall become one). The woman being a picture of our soul as it relates to our spiritual husband ("your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name")...her desire was to be for her husband but in the garden she reasoned with something outside of herself (being one with her husband no more...) and her desire: Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Throughout scripture, an adulterous woman, roaming between two mountains, desolate land are pictures of our soul lost til it be found again in HIM. Reconciled, made ONE. For Adam and the woman (not yet named Eve) before the fall were naked and not ashamed...walking as one with God.

Adam ate the feast prepared by the woman in contrast to the wedding feast prepared by the father and being clothed in the proper garment. Adam and the woman once possessed God's glory having been made in His image. Suddenly their eyesight/perception changed ("Where art thou, who told you you were naked and hast thou eaten?") The glory of God was covered - "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Gen 3:21 and they were now destined to toil the earth of themselves for food.

The Kingdom is within/in our midst as are two trees...duality within (battle of Galatians 5) and waking up to the Spirit alive within, becoming ONE (again)...Christ The Door (back), the lamb who takes away the sin of the world, slain before the foundation of the world.

He who has the bride is the bridegroom...the truth of becoming One again, enclosed in our beloved...being single of eye (again) eating of the tree of life...as opposed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil...which are all internal truths being revealed in the glass/mirror...the son that we are through the son...

 

[Radagast]

So my explanation begins with the passage "that she is defiled" which is a translation from a single hebrew word - tame, strongs 2930. This word has the meaning of (1)"to become unclean" and (2)"to be declared unclean". My argument is that even though the 2 meanings are very close, and usually it is meaning 1 that is used in Bible translations, it is actually meaning 2 that will make the passage make sense.

Grammatically, I don't believe that the verb in the hothpael form can have the meaning you suggest. All the translators and commentators agree that "after she has been defiled" is the correct translation.

Your whole explanation of the passage is built on an error.

In fact, the key to the passage is to read it in the light of Matthew 5:32. Tthere is a detailed explanation here.

 

[PeterDona]

Grammatically, I don't believe that the verb in the hothpael form can have the meaning you suggest. All the translators and commentators agree that "after she has been defiled" is the correct translation.

Your whole explanation of the passage is built on an error.

Have to admit I know nothing of hebrew.
Would you proceed to rule out the other key point of my post, namely that the defiling happened as part of the first breakup and not the initiation of the second marriage? which is a key point that I contend for here.

In fact, the key to the passage is to read it in the light of Matthew 5:32. Tthere is a detailed explanation here.

Looks like excellent teaching, I will take the time to read that.

 

[Punchukis]

Jesus already explained this on Mathews 5 :

7 Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.