Deuteronomy 24:1 - Meaning and Application

This was a permission, which the Pharisees wrongly treated as a command, when they said, “Moses commanded to give a certificate of divorce” (Matthew 19:7). That was not correct. Our Savior explained that Moses allowed it only because of the hardness of their hearts, so that if husbands could not divorce their wives at all, they might treat them harshly, and perhaps even put them to death. It is likely that divorce was already practiced before this law, as it is assumed in (Leviticus 21:14), and Moses saw the need to set some rules for it.

First, a man could not divorce his wife unless he found some uncleanness in her (Deuteronomy 24:1). It was not enough to say that he no longer liked her, or liked someone else better. He had to give a real reason for his dislike, something that made her unpleasant to him, even if it would not seem so to someone else. This “uncleanness” must mean something less than adultery, because adultery was punished by death. It must also mean something less than mere suspicion of adultery, because in that case he could bring the matter to the test of the jealous-water law. So it likely meant some shameful behavior, a stubborn and quarrelsome spirit, or some serious disease or defect. Some Jewish writers even thought that bad breath could be a valid reason for divorce. Whatever the exact meaning, it surely meant something serious. The later Jewish teachers were wrong to allow divorce for every reason, no matter how small (Matthew 19:3).

Second, the divorce had to be done in writing, not just by spoken words. Words can be said in anger and too quickly. A written certificate, properly prepared and declared before witnesses, made it clear that this was a deliberate act. It took time and left room for thought, so the man would not do it rashly.

Third, the husband had to give the certificate into his wife’s hand and send her away. Some think this also required him to provide for her and give her what was fitting for her condition, so she could remarry more easily. And that was only right, since the trouble was not really her fault, but her misfortune.

Fourth, once divorced, the woman was free to marry another man (Deuteronomy 24:2). The divorce ended the marriage bond as fully as death would have done. She was as free to marry again as if her first husband had died.

Fifth, if her second husband died or divorced her, she might still marry a third, but her first husband could never take her back again (Deuteronomy 24:3-4). He could have done so if she had not married another man, but by doing that she had fully given up her first husband forever. In relation to him, she was treated as defiled, though not in relation to someone else.

The Jewish writers said this law was meant to stop a shameful practice among the Egyptians, who were said to change wives often. Or perhaps it was meant to keep men from acting too quickly in divorcing their wives. A woman who had been sent away would likely remarry at once out of revenge, and the husband who had dismissed her might later find the next wife even less pleasing. Then he would want his first wife back. But the law said, in effect, “No, you cannot have her again. You should have kept her when you had her.” It is best to be content with what we have, because changes made from discontent often turn out worse. What we know already is commonly better, even when it seems worse to us, than what we do not know.

By making this law so strict, God showed the greatness of his grace in being willing to welcome back his people, even after they had turned away from him in sin (Jeremiah 3:1). “You have acted like an unfaithful wife with many lovers, yet return to me,” he says. His thoughts and ways are above ours.