Words'nTone

Continuing with Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.”

Deut 24:1ff might actually strike some as sexist, for the reciprocal—i.e., the male who leaves or divorces marries another wife and is, thus, prohibited from returning to the first—is not mentioned or prohibited anywhere in Scripture.  Anywhere!  Nor, is there any prohibition for returning to one’s first wife or reference of defilement of the “second” husband.  The prohibition is solely for the woman in this sequence of events.  It seems reasonable to think beyond our moralistic framework and ask larger questions of why God includes this prohibition in the first place?

First, doesn’t anyone think it odd that the first divorce and then first remarriage does not have a defilement aspect (nor any reference to sin or shame) included.  (So why is divorce and remarriage so shameful or prohibitive of professional church ministry?  Certainly it’s not from this text.) It is the potential third relationship (i.e., the second remarriage) that would jeopardize the community.  Some form of distortion is, according to the text, bringing guilt on the land (cf. v 4: “and shall not bring guilt upon the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance”).  This is case law whereby Moses (as Yahweh’s mouth-piece) is creating a series of laws/codes (throughout Deuteronomy) that have an effect on the land of gift.  This code here is not just about infidelity, not even about the right or wrong of divorce, but one that is concerned with land/inheritance.

No question that such divorce-remarriage-remarriage is a defilement to God’s order.  This text states so.  But why is it?  Why isn’t the first divorce, in this case, a defilement of the land?  Why is returning to the first husband a defilement?  Something about the third marriage (the second remarriage) of a woman back to her first husband damages the community and social order.  Here’s a more probably framework to consider for this prohibition:

The first husband has “gotten” out of the marriage without having to hand over any dowry or financial consideration to his wife. The reference to “indecency” (v 1) is not limited to sexual infidelity, but more probably refers to the inability to bear children (i.e., that’s probably the social context and connotative meaning of “bringing shame” which is what the words means).  This makes sense within the context of land/inheritance.  It is unlikely that the “charge” of indecency is related to adultery, because Moses had already indicated that adultery was punished by death, not divorce (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24).  Additionally, we already know that there are many circumstances addressed in the Old Testament for which divorce is certainly prohibited (e.g., a man defiling his wife before marriage, Deut 22:28-29; falsely accusing a wife of not being a virgin, Deut 22:13-19).

We note that the rejected wife is sent out with a “certificate of divorce,” which does not indicate a rationale for divorce, nor its acceptance.  The man just does it.  This “certificate” allowed the wife to remarry freely to another man, but furthermore enabled the former first husband to be free from returning the dowry or from any financial obligation toward his former first wife.  In Israel, the chief deterrent to divorce most certainly was financial, for divorce caused the divorcing husband to forfeit the dowry, and as well was obligated to make “divorce payments” as well (usually).  The “Certificate of Divorce” is not a requirement of the code, but a description of what was culturally acceptable in divorce case law.  It was a matter of cultural custom and seems to have provided the divorcing husband cover or a way of eliminating any financial responsibility toward the wife he was divorcing.

Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action...to be continued…

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.