Deuteronomy 24:4

[Happyhen]

Perhaps there is already a discussion on this, but I can’t find it. If there is, can someone direct me to it please?
Deuteronomy 24:4
If it is an abomination for a first husband to take his divorced wife back to himself after her latter husband dies, how or why is it acceptable for any other man to marry that woman?
Also, any thoughts on why this would be an abomination for him to take her back?

 

[Mark C]

It tells us the land is polluted/defiled. While I am always careful to identify "Markology," - i.e., personal opinion ABOUT Scripture, not inconsistent with it, but still unsupported by specifics, I might suggest that it has to do with the now ex-husband who has nullified his own vows with that former wife.

He has shown once that he can't keep them.

Doesn't a man who won't honor his own vows for the most important covenant he will enter pretty much "defile the land?"

Oh, and just look at what those who put their hand on a Bible and lie today have managed to do.

 

[Edward]

how or why is it acceptable for any other man to marry that woman?

Because he gave her a "bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand," She is now free to remarry if he does not give her the bill of divorcement and she goes and joins another man it is adultery.

Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Also, any thoughts on why this would be an abomination for him to take her back?

Because she is "defiled" mixing of seed ie. DNA. And maybe to prevent STDs?? Women were NOT meant to go from man to man to man...
Deuteronomy 24:4 KJV 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.

 

[Mark C]

Re: why she can't return...

Because she is "defiled" mixing of seed ie. DNA. And maybe to prevent STDs?? Women were NOT meant to go from man to man to man...
Deuteronomy 24:4 KJV 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...

Interesting.

The only problem I see with that explanation is that she evidently, by the logic of the process, MAY return to a husband who did NOT 'shalach' her and then give her a 'get.'

(See Paul's midrash in I Corinthians 7:11, for support.) She is not to depart from HIM, but "if she does," [anyway] she must remain unmarried, until she is "reconciled" to him.

Notably, though, in that case there should be no 'mixing of seed.'

 

[Happyhen]

Because he gave her a "bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand," She is now free to remarry if he does not give her the bill of divorcement and she goes and joins another man it is adultery.

Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.


Because she is "defiled" mixing of seed ie. DNA. And maybe to prevent STDs?? Women were NOT meant to go from man to man to man...
Deuteronomy 24:4 KJV 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.

If it’s the DNA issue, then any widow would be “defiled” wouldn’t they?
And would it not then be an abomination for any man to marry a previously sexually active woman? Whether a widow, a divorced woman or any defiled, never covenanted female.

 

[Mark C]

If it’s the DNA issue, then any widow would be “defiled” wouldn’t they?
And would it not then be an abomination for any man to marry a previously sexually active woman? Whether a widow, a divorced woman or any defiled, never covenanted female.

Which is the reason I caution people to "tread carefully" on this verse, and understand what He is saying, in context. I have heard too many 'divorced' women, who have been taught by what I refer to derogatorily as - let's be kind - 'less than Scripture-oriented churches' - that they can never marry again, ever, BECAUSE they are defiled. Modern term: 'Damaged goods."

That, I contend, is a lie from the pit of hell. And it denies His Word to the contrary.

 

[Happyhen]

I agree Mark.
That was an “IF” it’s an issue about the DNA, then it would not permit any of those females to marry. So, it seems like it’s more than that.
If the man breaking covenant is the defilement then it seems like he would then be forbidden to take another.
And it seems it would say that he is defiled, rather than that she is defiled after being another mans wife, when she was legitimately divorced.

But it says “she is defiled” and can’t come back to the first husband.
Can she legally marry another, a third husband? And it NOT be an abomination before the Lord?
If so, is there any explanation why that wouldn’t be an abomination?

 

[steve]

It tells us the land is polluted/defiled. While I am always careful to identify "Markology," - i.e., personal opinion ABOUT Scripture, not inconsistent with it, but still unsupported by specifics, I might suggest that it has to do with the now ex-husband who has nullified his own vows with that former wife.

He has shown once that he can't keep them.

Doesn't a man who won't honor his own vows for the most important covenant he will enter pretty much "defile the land?"

Oh, and just look at what those who put their hand on a Bible and lie today have managed to do.

In addition, it would prevent men from divorcing and later taking back wives in a frivolous manner. A form of wife swapping that would have been legal without this rule.

I meant this as a question, but it didn’t write itself that way.

 

[Mark C]

It may simply be (as many of us have no doubt seen) that there are pairings that are simply not compatible.

...it seems like it’s more than [just DNA]
If the man breaking covenant is the defilement then it seems like he would then be forbidden to take another.
And it seems it would say that he is defiled, rather than that she is defiled after being another mans wife, when she was legitimately divorced.

Admittedly, I would have to read into the text, but I think this implication is fair:
"... after that she is defiled [to him.]"

Specifically, after THAT - him putting her away, and giving her the get - she is defiled. Evidently, so far as "that" is concerned. Not "in general," to ALL potential husbands, since it doesn't say that, and it gives a process twice to allow her to remarry. And the latter's death, even if he didn't like her, is not her fault (else it would say so!)


PS> Last week's Torah parsha, in the ghetto, addressed these verses, along with some of the other most "politically incorrect," in the Book. Warning, it's "no punches pulled," in there:

https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/...ust-if-a-man-have-two-wives.17543/post-287318

 

[Edward]

First off I am not an expert in this subject, I figured I might as well get that out.

(See Paul's midrash in I Corinthians 7:11, for support.) She is not to depart from HIM, but "if she does," [anyway] she must remain unmarried, until she is "reconciled" to him.

In Deut 24 the man is putting her away, in the passage you quoted she is departing of her own will,
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 KJV And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If you notice it says, "Let not the wife depart from her husband:" The word depart does not mean divorce,
G5563 χωρίζω chōrizō kho-rid'-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.
That is why verse 11 says "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:"

If it’s the DNA issue, then any widow would be “defiled” wouldn’t they?

I just throw the DNA out there as an option, because of the back and forth between the same men or multiple men. As far as a widow is concerned she is not practicing going between multiple men, she is living Holy, Righteous, and Just. And she is seeking to be covered by a righteous man.

 

[Mark C]

If you notice it says, "Let not the wife depart from her husband:" The word depart does not mean divorce,

That's the point, and it is what Paul is affirming (among the other related issues.)

She is "not to depart," and she has NO AUTHORITY to "divorce."

 

[NBTX11]

He gave her a bill of divorcement. It’s that simple. There’s no process for nullifying a bill of divorcement in scripture. It’s permanent. You can’t undo it.

Where are the verses on how a man can nullify a bill of divorcement? This is one of the reason divorces should be rare. It’s permanent as marriage is intended to be permanent.

 

[frederick]

As far as a widow is concerned she is not practicing going between multiple men, she is living Holy, Righteous, and Just. And she is seeking to be covered by a righteous man.

Widows are to remarry. 1 Timothy 5:14, Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

 

[Mark C]

He gave her a bill of divorcement. It’s that simple. There’s no process for nullifying a bill of divorcement in scripture. It’s permanent. You can’t undo it.

Where are the verses on how a man can nullify a bill of divorcement? This is one of the reason divorces should be rare. It’s permanent as marriage is intended to be permanent.

There is at least an IMPLICATION. (And it's not without ambiguity and even mystery.)

Yahuah gave Israel a certificate, and yet says - repeatedly - "Return to Me."

Admittedly, 'beside Him,' there is 'no other.' So she literally cannot remarry...although she is guilty of whorin' a'plenty. And - this is key, I suggest - He need NOT have given it to her! (So it is not, and was NEVER, He that broke Covenant, or was false in His covering.

He CAN, however, make her transgression as if it never happened.

 

[Edward]

Widows are to remarry. 1 Timothy 5:14, Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Yes, I agree I wasn't saying otherwise.

 

[OttoM]

In addition, it would prevent men from divorcing and later taking back wives in a frivolous manner. A form of wife swapping that would have been legal without this rule.

I meant this as a question, but it didn’t write itself that way.

I think this is the reasoning behind that type of wording. Because there would then be a loophole in the Creator's torah for adultery to be committed. Husbands would be able to trade wives with each other, and then take them back.

 

[steve]

Widows are to remarry. 1 Timothy 5:14, Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

The word that was used in Greek was not defined as a woman whose husband has died.
It is a woman who is “bereft”, without a husband for whatever reason.

I maintain that some were women who had accepted the Messiah for who he claimed to have been and were divorced by their husbands for their belief. Making it a problem in the community of Yeshua followers.