24:1–4 Although divorce is rarely encountered in the OT, it probably was as common in Israel as it was among other nations. Few regulations are given concerning the procedures of divorce, with this passage being the most specific. The only OT mentions of grounds for divorce are the failure of a husband to provide food, clothing, or conjugal relations (Ex. 21:10–11) and the “some indecency” mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1. Differences between Scripture and the laws of other ancient nations include the rights of a woman to remain married and to remarry. The one absolute distinction of Israel was the woman’s right to a divorce certificate, which affirmed she was free to remarry. The question of interpretation in the stipulation stated here concerns the conditions of the divorce that lead to the documentation given to the wife and that prevent the husband from ever marrying her again and therefore having access to her property.

The divorce law is formulated as a conditional sentence, a common form in legal material of ancient Near Eastern cultures. These have been called casuistic or case law because they first state a condition or circumstance in which the law applies. When the offense has been stated, along with associated matters (the protasis, or “if” clause), the response clause enunciates the legal pronouncement (the apodosis, or “then” clause). The lengthy protasis of this case constitutes seven distinct criteria that must be present: marriage of the woman, charge of indecency of the wife, divorce by the man, woman’s remarriage, second husband’s rejection, second husband’s divorce (or death), and first husband’s attempt to marry her again. In such a circumstance the remarriage is forbidden. The more usual cases of divorce involve simply a husband’s hating his wife and divorcing her. In such a case the husband is required to repay the dowry to his wife and possibly provide other compensation, as stated everywhere in ancient Near Eastern law. But if a husband has a case for divorce, repayment of the dowry is not required. It is also possible that the husband could seek to marry the woman again, potentially for the financial benefit. In the case given by Moses in this example, the first husband is apparently seeking to divorce his wife with a minimum of financial penalty, using this charge against her to reduce his responsibilities.

In the course of time, it could be discovered that the claims made by the first husband were not valid, or they might be discounted, given the new circumstances of his former wife. She now would have considerably more wealth because of the intervening marriage, and he would want to marry her again if the opportunity arose. This is forbidden, because the husband would benefit twice. If he was able to divorce while paying the minimum penalty, a remarriage would further benefit him because she would come with her dowry and inheritance from her second husband. Denying the grounds of the original divorce for financial benefit is an abomination.

Two lexical questions must be addressed in clarifying the prohibition of the remarriage of the divorced woman to her first husband. The first is the charge of “some indecency (v. 1),” and the second is the consequence of her being “defiled” (v. 4). The first is the rare Hebrew word ‘erwat, the same word used in relation to bodily exposures involving any kind of secretion that might defile the army camp (23:14). The second is huttamma’ah, found only here in the passive form. It carries the sense that she has been required to declare herself unclean, probably with reference to the charge of her first husband. The sense of ‘erwat must have something to do with sexuality; if the previous usage is a guide, it would also have to do with bodily secretions. It is probable that it has to do with menstruation, possibly a situation in which the woman has a continuous flow of blood, as in the case of the woman seeking help from Jesus (Mark 5:25–34).65 A problem of this nature would make her continuously unclean and therefore forbid her from intercourse. It might also prevent her from ever having children. The husband might have learned of this only after he married her and, instead of having compassion, divorce her in his own interests.

Other similar interpretations have been proposed for this passage and fall within the semantic meaning of the stipulations of this law. As with other casuistic laws, this case is meant to be exemplary and may be intentionally ambiguous so as to include a variety of similar circumstances. By requiring a certificate of divorce and forbidding remarriage to the person who gave it, the law guarantees a woman’s protection on two counts. She is assured of the right to remarry without fear of further interference from her first husband or any claims from him. She achieves financial independence and is perpetually free to remarry anyone else. Remarriage to her first husband would be a denial of the original reason for the divorce and a compromise of the freedoms she had received. Denial of the protection given in the divorce certificate is abhorrent to the Lord and brings wrong on the land the Lord is giving them.

The argument that the remarriage constitutes the woman as unclean is a fundamental contradiction to the purpose of the certificate. If the remarriage made her unclean, it would amount to adultery and would be forbidden outright. The protasis asserts the opposite: the certificate of divorce guarantees her right to remarry without penalty.

24:5 Armies were summoned from the citizenry in time of need. These are wars for the citizenry: the people go out to war (Deut. 20:1). Small standing armies supported Saul and David, while organized military warfare grew under Solomon. In general, however, men were summoned to battle as the need arose. Those newly establishing a home were exempt for the sake of their home and to meet the expectations of their new bride. This is another law with the well-being of women in mind, since the causative form of the verb does not merely mean “to be happy with his wife.” Rather, the husband is to bring joy to his wife. The woman’s expectations in marriage include much more than sexual satisfaction. Though the text is not explicit, the usual circumstance would be a first marriage for both the man and the woman.

24:6–7 Loans could not be given at interest (23:19), but the creditor could have a type of lien on the debtor’s property to ensure repayment. It is not specified that this is determined in advance. It might become a decision of the creditor when a loan is defaulted. But a creditor is limited in his claims for collateral until the loan is paid. He cannot claim an essential item such as a mill or a portion of it, which is present in every household for the purpose of making daily bread.

The regulation on kidnapping is found with the same stipulations in Exodus 21:16, though Deuteronomy specifies the victim as an Israelite. It is likely that the same penalty would apply for a non-Israelite, as stated in Exodus. It may be that Moses is emphasizing the more egregious case of an Israelite who might take a human life as pledge for a loan. One of the crimes of the rich was to take the children of the poor in pledge for a loan (Job 24:9). This was not the same as a man’s volunteering his services to work off a debt. Kidnapping, though no doubt rationalized legally, falls in the category of property and human life, which is an appropriate sequel to the laws on marriage and loans. However, the action of stealing a person for slavery reduces human life to property, the most egregious manner of violating life in the interests of material gain. It is particularly opprobrious and therefore subject to the same penalty as actually killing another person.

24:8–9 The laws concerning leprosy are assumed to be well known. The command to observe them carefully is linked with the requirement to follow the teaching of the Levites in observance of the covenant that the Lord gave Israel when bringing them out of Egypt. The example of Miriam in Numbers 12:9–13 serves as a warning of the importance of observing all the commandments. Aaron compares the situation of Miriam to the curse of death (Num. 12:12), which may be why this law is singled out as an example of the necessity of observing the entire covenant. In this sense it is analogous to the kidnapped slave or the poor person left without a means to provide for his own food.

A “leprous disease” is a good way of indicating that the Hebrew term refers to a wide variety of conditions that do not fall under the modern category of Hansen’s disease. It affected many aspects of daily life in Israel and so was an appropriate example to use for the exhortation to faithfulness, which both concludes the previous section and introduces the following commands, which deal with the importance of not taking advantage of the poor.

24:10–13 Money is always a contentious subject. Unpaid debts have always been a major problem for anyone engaging in commerce, even if it is simple peasant-level farming. Various kinds of pressure are used to collect on defaulted loans, including the confiscation of property. The stipulations of these verses set two limits on actions that can be taken to collect a loan. The first is that confiscation of property against a loan must be voluntary on the part of the debtor. The second is that the item confiscated must not endanger health or well-being. If a garment is used as a blanket at night, it must be returned each evening.

Two different terms are used for the giving of an item in pledge as security for a loan. In Deuteronomy 24:6, 17 the Hebrew term is habal; in verses 10, 12 the term is ‘abat. The first term has the sense of seizing something as a pledge; the second refers to obtaining a deposit as collateral or making a loan against a deposit. The difference in the first case is that the pledge is taken after failure to pay the loan, while in the second the loan is made using a pledge as security. These are to be distinguished from ‘arab, which means to act as a guarantor of a loan for someone else. This is warned against in Proverbs repeatedly (e.g., Prov. 6:1; 11:15), as it carries the risk of total loss. One may be obligated to cover for a bad debt with no hope of any kind of recompense. The difference is comparable to the distinction between cosigning for the purchase of a property and acting as guarantor for a loan. In the case of cosigning, both parties hold title until the debt is fully paid. This provides a measure of collateral in case of default of payments.

24:14–15 Laborers are dependent each day for payment, as they are landless and have no other resources. Delay of pay is a threat to their well-being and to their families. This is unacceptable conduct irrespective of whether the worker is a fellow Israelite. The admonition concludes with the warning that such conduct will bring judgment. The case of kindness in relation to pledges gives promise of blessing for the consideration given. All laborers deserve consideration and respect. They have a powerful recourse in being able to call out to a God of compassion.

24:16 This law is an example of general requirements of justice in protecting human life. In biblical covenant code, human life always takes precedence. Justice is repayment of loss incurred and is never revenge. Such considerations were not the case with other codes. In contrast to the stipulation of this verse, the Code of Hammurabi addresses cases in which a builder is responsible for the collapse of a house, causing death or injury. In one such clause we read, “If it has caused the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put the son of that builder to death.”66 The translation “Each one shall be put to death for his own sin” is not to be read as a theological statement referring to offenses against God. In the context of law, the word translated “sin” (Hb. heteh) refers to a legal offense or crime. It refers to missing the mark as stated in legal requirement.

24:17–18 The admonitions to be careful not to exploit the weak and defenseless conclude with a general statement found frequently in the prophets. Isaiah singles out exactly this topic in his condemnation of the leaders of Israel for breaking the covenant (e.g., Isa. 1:16–17). Confiscating (Hb. habal, “take”) an essential garment to collect on a debt recalls and concludes the previous examples. The whole section ends with a reminder of the mercy Israel has received.

24:19–22 The whole chapter concludes with a final provision for the welfare of widows, aliens, and orphans. Farmers are not to be stingy in gathering up every last sheaf, olive, or grape in their harvest. The landless should also share in the harvest. The practice is illustrated in the book of Ruth, in which a widowed Moabite harvests in the fields of Boaz, a man who specifically orders consideration be given to her. This complements the tithe of every third year (Deut. 14:28–29), by which a tenth of the crop is given to the Levite and the poor of the land. The practice is mandatory, but in doing this the Israelites acknowledge that the land is a gift of God graciously given to them.