The article below was written by Bruce Woodford. Sometimes those who try to understand what the Bible says look too deeply into a passage and fail to see the obvious.... I agree with Bruce's view below the 'unpopular view'. Let common sense prevail: the only reason a husband could be prevented from taking back his 1st wife would be if the marriage was entered into unlawfully to start with. This would then negate the vows. In this verse it's clear that the marriage was unlawfully entered into - it was incestuous. Polygamy was rife in 8th Century BC the time Deuteronomy was written. Men also had many slaves and concubines. The chances that someone could marry a relative without knowing were far greater in those days.
COMPARISON OF TWO VIEWS OF DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4
I. POPULAR VIEW:
A. Definition of "uncleanness":
"Uncleanness" must be something less than sexual immorality because the penalty for such was death. It could be some indecent behaviour, or a physical blemish etc. But we do not know specifically what it was!
B. View of verse 1:
v.1 simply speaks of a permission for a man to put his wife away,
NOT a command requiring him to do so.
C. View of verse 2:
v.2 is a divine permission for a divorced woman to remarry in
order to protect her from destitution.
D. View of Reconciliation with the first husband verses 3&4:
verses 3&4 teach that if remarriage occurs after any divorce, no
reconciliation of any first marriage is permitted. To reconcile
any first marriage after another marriage would be abominable and
defiling to the land because it would be equal to "wife swapping"!!!
E. The cause of defilement in verse 4:
The defilement here is viewed as being the result of the marriage
to the second husband. Thus it is considered to be the defilement
of adultery. According to this view, this is the lesser of two
evils when compared to leaving the woman "destitute".
II. UNPOPULAR VIEW: (The view which I personally hold)
A. Definition of "uncleanness":
"Uncleanness" in Deut.24 is an incestuous marriage entered into
unknowingly. This is the only sexual sin which could possibly be
committed ignorantly by both parties. And merciful provision
was made by God for such (Leviticus 4:21-35 and Numbers 15:27-30).
B. View of verse 1:
v.1 is a divine command to separate from a defiling relationship
when it is discovered.
This is not merely a permission to do so. (Other examples of the
word “let” which express a command are Ex.19:10,14; 19:22;
Lev.4:3; 24:14; Num.12:14; 16:38 and Deut.22:7 etc)
C. View of verse 2:
v.2 is a divine permission for such a woman to remarry. Since she
had been put away by divine command from a defiling marriage, she
has no husband. Thus she may remarry without being defiled or
guilty of adultery.
D. View of Reconciliation with the first husband, verses 3 & 4:
Verses 3 & 4 teach that an incestuous marriage that is ended by divorce should never be reconciled. To reconcile such a relationship would be to knowingly re-establish a defiled incestuous relationship. Under the law, this was punishable by death for it was such an abomination and would defile the land!
E. The cause of defilement in verse 4:
The defilement of verse 4 is defilement in connection with the first husband! It is the defilement of incest. That is why defilement is only mentioned in connection with the consideration of whether the first husband could take her again! Such is NOT the case when spouses of marriages joined by God are wrongfully divorced and then later seek reconciliation!
SCRIPTURAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE POPULAR VIEW:
1. This view introduces an absolutely new meaning to the word “uncleanness” in Deut.24:1…(the Hebrew word ERVAH , Strong's # 6172). However in all 38 instances of its' use prior to Deuteronomy 24, it refers to exposure of something to the eyes of another which is improper because the relationship between the two makes it improper. In 32 of those 38 instances it refers to the exposure of one's nakedness to a near relative (incest). The Israelites who first read Deuteronomy 24 were well aware of the previous usage of that word and therefore would have immediately recognized that Moses was speaking of a relationship of incest which had been entered into in ignorance!
2. The Lord Jesus and the Pharisees acknowledged that Moses had stated a command regarding divorce. (Matt.19:7 and Mark 10:3) So if verse 1 is only a permission, we must find another statement by Moses which is, in fact, a command! As far as I can tell, every other statement he makes on the subject is a permission! (Exodus 21:1-11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
3. The major difficulty with this view is that it makes God to not only condone, but actually to be a party to wickedness as he expressly permits a woman to enter into an adulterous relationship and thus to be defiled by the latter husband! This view thus teaches that in a situation of such a permitted divorce, God is actually forced into a corner where he must choose the lesser of two evils!!!! Such is an absolute impossibility for James 1:14 clearly states, "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man."
4. We are told that the permission to remarry was to protect the woman from destitution. But God had already made ample provision that no person in Israel was left destitute. Whether they were single, married, divorced, male, female, bond, free, Israelite or stranger- provision was made for their needs! See Ex.23:9; Lev.19:10,33,34; 23:22; 25:6,35-38; Deut.1:16,17; and 10:18-22. Thus remarriage was never a necessity in Israel to avoid destitution!
5. All commentators who accept the popular view say that "uncleanness" in v.1 could NOT be sexual immorality because the remedy for such was death, not divorce! But they fail to recognize that IF the woman is defiled by the latter husband, it can only be the defilement of adultery for which the law also required the death penalty!! They also fail to recognize that incest is a sexual sin that can be committed ignorantly by both parties and that God makes merciful provision for sins of ignorance. (Leviticus 4:21-35 and Numbers 15:27-30).
6. We who hold the "unpopular view" are often charged with being harsh, legalistic, unforgiving and of showing no compassion to those who have had a marriage failure. Actually, the very opposite is true! God's grace always leaves the door open for reconciliation to sinners who are willing to turn from their sin. God continually urges repentance and promises forgiveness and restoration. See Jeremiah 3! Only after such offers of grace are continually refused and God's judgment falls in death does the opportunity for reconciliation cease. But the popular view fosters a spirit of unforgiveness and hardheartedness which absolutely denies reconciliation when one has failed and remarried after a wrongful divorce!
I am willing to go on record to say that if anyone at any time can scripturally refute all 6 of the above objections to the "popular view", I will publicly renounce the "unpopular view" which I presently hold. I am fully aware that such would radically alter all that I have taught on this subject to date.
(signed) Bruce Woodford
I would gladly correspond with any who would like to discuss these matters and would like to email me at [email protected]
COMPARISON OF TWO VIEWS OF DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4
I. POPULAR VIEW:
A. Definition of "uncleanness":
"Uncleanness" must be something less than sexual immorality because the penalty for such was death. It could be some indecent behaviour, or a physical blemish etc. But we do not know specifically what it was!
B. View of verse 1:
v.1 simply speaks of a permission for a man to put his wife away,
NOT a command requiring him to do so.
C. View of verse 2:
v.2 is a divine permission for a divorced woman to remarry in
order to protect her from destitution.
D. View of Reconciliation with the first husband verses 3&4:
verses 3&4 teach that if remarriage occurs after any divorce, no
reconciliation of any first marriage is permitted. To reconcile
any first marriage after another marriage would be abominable and
defiling to the land because it would be equal to "wife swapping"!!!
E. The cause of defilement in verse 4:
The defilement here is viewed as being the result of the marriage
to the second husband. Thus it is considered to be the defilement
of adultery. According to this view, this is the lesser of two
evils when compared to leaving the woman "destitute".
II. UNPOPULAR VIEW: (The view which I personally hold)
A. Definition of "uncleanness":
"Uncleanness" in Deut.24 is an incestuous marriage entered into
unknowingly. This is the only sexual sin which could possibly be
committed ignorantly by both parties. And merciful provision
was made by God for such (Leviticus 4:21-35 and Numbers 15:27-30).
B. View of verse 1:
v.1 is a divine command to separate from a defiling relationship
when it is discovered.
This is not merely a permission to do so. (Other examples of the
word “let” which express a command are Ex.19:10,14; 19:22;
Lev.4:3; 24:14; Num.12:14; 16:38 and Deut.22:7 etc)
C. View of verse 2:
v.2 is a divine permission for such a woman to remarry. Since she
had been put away by divine command from a defiling marriage, she
has no husband. Thus she may remarry without being defiled or
guilty of adultery.
D. View of Reconciliation with the first husband, verses 3 & 4:
Verses 3 & 4 teach that an incestuous marriage that is ended by divorce should never be reconciled. To reconcile such a relationship would be to knowingly re-establish a defiled incestuous relationship. Under the law, this was punishable by death for it was such an abomination and would defile the land!
E. The cause of defilement in verse 4:
The defilement of verse 4 is defilement in connection with the first husband! It is the defilement of incest. That is why defilement is only mentioned in connection with the consideration of whether the first husband could take her again! Such is NOT the case when spouses of marriages joined by God are wrongfully divorced and then later seek reconciliation!
SCRIPTURAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE POPULAR VIEW:
1. This view introduces an absolutely new meaning to the word “uncleanness” in Deut.24:1…(the Hebrew word ERVAH , Strong's # 6172). However in all 38 instances of its' use prior to Deuteronomy 24, it refers to exposure of something to the eyes of another which is improper because the relationship between the two makes it improper. In 32 of those 38 instances it refers to the exposure of one's nakedness to a near relative (incest). The Israelites who first read Deuteronomy 24 were well aware of the previous usage of that word and therefore would have immediately recognized that Moses was speaking of a relationship of incest which had been entered into in ignorance!
2. The Lord Jesus and the Pharisees acknowledged that Moses had stated a command regarding divorce. (Matt.19:7 and Mark 10:3) So if verse 1 is only a permission, we must find another statement by Moses which is, in fact, a command! As far as I can tell, every other statement he makes on the subject is a permission! (Exodus 21:1-11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
3. The major difficulty with this view is that it makes God to not only condone, but actually to be a party to wickedness as he expressly permits a woman to enter into an adulterous relationship and thus to be defiled by the latter husband! This view thus teaches that in a situation of such a permitted divorce, God is actually forced into a corner where he must choose the lesser of two evils!!!! Such is an absolute impossibility for James 1:14 clearly states, "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man."
4. We are told that the permission to remarry was to protect the woman from destitution. But God had already made ample provision that no person in Israel was left destitute. Whether they were single, married, divorced, male, female, bond, free, Israelite or stranger- provision was made for their needs! See Ex.23:9; Lev.19:10,33,34; 23:22; 25:6,35-38; Deut.1:16,17; and 10:18-22. Thus remarriage was never a necessity in Israel to avoid destitution!
5. All commentators who accept the popular view say that "uncleanness" in v.1 could NOT be sexual immorality because the remedy for such was death, not divorce! But they fail to recognize that IF the woman is defiled by the latter husband, it can only be the defilement of adultery for which the law also required the death penalty!! They also fail to recognize that incest is a sexual sin that can be committed ignorantly by both parties and that God makes merciful provision for sins of ignorance. (Leviticus 4:21-35 and Numbers 15:27-30).
6. We who hold the "unpopular view" are often charged with being harsh, legalistic, unforgiving and of showing no compassion to those who have had a marriage failure. Actually, the very opposite is true! God's grace always leaves the door open for reconciliation to sinners who are willing to turn from their sin. God continually urges repentance and promises forgiveness and restoration. See Jeremiah 3! Only after such offers of grace are continually refused and God's judgment falls in death does the opportunity for reconciliation cease. But the popular view fosters a spirit of unforgiveness and hardheartedness which absolutely denies reconciliation when one has failed and remarried after a wrongful divorce!
I am willing to go on record to say that if anyone at any time can scripturally refute all 6 of the above objections to the "popular view", I will publicly renounce the "unpopular view" which I presently hold. I am fully aware that such would radically alter all that I have taught on this subject to date.
(signed) Bruce Woodford
I would gladly correspond with any who would like to discuss these matters and would like to email me at [email protected]