Deuteronomy chapter 24

vs 1

This next section (vs 1-4) is all one section - about divorce and remarriage issues. But The KJV uses a full stop at the end of vs 1, which makes it seem a bit more discrete. The problem with this is that it makes the mistake of making vs 1 sound like a commandment on its own - which is the exact problem the Pharisees had wi th this verse. (Apparently - so I've been told - the Septuagint also contains this discreteness, but the Masoretic does not. I can't back that up. Ethan Longhenry explores this here.)

Anyway, I'm going to use the (T)NIV type translation at this point, which means that it is all flowing together into one glorious whole.

So vs 1 sets the scene. A man doesn't like his wife, divorces her, and sends her packing.

vs 2

Another conditional clause - since she is now free to marry again, assume that she does.

vs 3

I'm glad they throw in the "or if he dies", otherwise you're beginning to think, "Wow, there's something wrong here. No-one likes being married to this woman." But I suppose it happens.

vs 4

It might seem odd that, even though the first husband wants her back, as it were, he can't have her anymore. But this is the importance of the conditions in verses 2 and 3. If she had not married again, then he could remarry her (at least, that seems the intention). I know it doesn't say that if he remarries then he can't marry her again, but since men were allowed multiple wives, I'm guessing it didn't matter so much to them.

This rule actually does a few things, which are important. One, it means you have to be serious when you divorce a wife - because if someone else snatches her up, that's it, you can't have her anymore. So it means you'll think twice before divorcing her. It also prevents wife-swapping sort of deals, where you divorce your wife long enough for another man to have her, and then get her back again. None of that - that's pimping! I'm being serious, because this is something that is attested to in other cultures. And God is serious too - he sees it as detestable.

vs 5

I prefer the word "duty" to "business" - it makes it sound more like he's being foisted with a responsibility, probably from the state or community, rather than he should give up running his hot dog stand.

It's a good rule, and one which MAF (Mission Aviation Fellowship) follows quite, well not literally, because MAF don't send people to war. But they don't let people fly planes for a year after they get married. You might think, "Hmm, that seems a bit odd. Why would MAF do that?" But I think, at least partly, they do it for the same reason - flying small planes over large mountains can cause sudden cases of death, as can war. It's a ballsy policy, and it probably costs them a few pilots too. But they are following a godly principle.

vs 6

So if someone owes you money, you can repossess stuff, but not things that they need to make a living. You have to at least give them a chance to pay your debt back! Why do you think mob bosses break people's fingers for not paying back debt? Not only because they want to scare people, but they also want to keep those people in their pocket, so they can never be free of debt.

vs 7

Israelites must never be slaves again. Doing this is so contrary to God's will and plan that there's simply no alternative but death.

vs 8

I wonder why it was traditionally translated leprosy? Perhaps because of Moses and his snowy hand - but surely that could be any number of horrific diseases. Anyway, the fact is you might get one, and then you'd better follow what the Levites are to do (which they should find in the book of Leviticus).

I will also point out that this verse assumes that the books of Leviticus (and possibly Numbers) exists, or at least that the information is available and known. So those people who think that Deuteronomy was the first book of the Bible, and that the other books of the Pentateuch were written later on in Kings time might have some trouble with this verse. I say trouble, they'll just say it's a later editorial addition, which is of course completely unprovable, and somewhat unnecessarily silly if you ask me.

vs 9

The Miriam thing is referring to an episode in Numbers 12 where Miriam and Aaron stand against Moses because his wife is from Cush. But she is healed because she follows the protocol, and I think that's the point Moses is making here.

vs 10

The pledge seems to be what we would call equity - so you're putting up something you own to show that you intend on paying the loan back. I'm not quite sure why you don't go into the person's house to get it - perhaps a cultural thing. Perhaps it's to stop you from also grabbing other things from their home.

vs 11

Perhaps also this act of bringing the pledge out shows that they are giving it willingly to pledge for the loan, rather than you just choosing something and yoinking it. This flows on with the next few verses.