4<\/strong>. after that she is defiled<\/em> ] Ambiguous indeed, as the most carefully chosen terms of some laws often are. But the natural meaning is that she is unclean to the former husband by her union with the latter. It cannot be a matter of indifference to him that she has been another’s, as (presumably) the popular humour took it. Such easy passage of a woman from one man to another did defile her: it is an abomination before Jehovah<\/em> (notice the peculiar construction before<\/em> and the absence of thy God<\/em> after the divine name). She was, therefore, taboo<\/em>, or unlawful to her first husband. Marti suggests that the uncleanness<\/em> may have a demonistic origin (cp. Deu 22:9-11<\/span>). This, of course, may have been the motive of the original law, but if so, it has disappeared from its present form.<\/p>\n thou shalt not cause the land to sin<\/em> ] Sam., LXX ye shall not<\/em>, etc. Cp. Deu 22:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n which the Lord thy God<\/em> is to give<\/strong> thee<\/em>, etc.] See on Deu 4:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. She is defiled<\/B><\/I>] Does not this refer to her having been divorced, and married in consequence to another? Though God, for the hardness of their hearts, suffered them to put away their wives, yet he considered all after-marriages in that case to be pollution and defilement; and it is on this ground that our Lord argues in the places referred to above, that whoever marries the woman that is put away is an adulterer: now this could not have been the case if God had allowed the divorce to be a legal and proper separation of the man from his wife; but in the sight of God nothing can be a legal cause of separation but adultery on either side. In such a case, according to the law of God, a man may put away his wife, and a wife may put away her husband; (see Mt 19:9<\/span>); for it appears that the wife had as much right to put away her husband as the husband had to put away his wife, see Mr 10:12<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n This is the punishment of his levity and injustice in putting her away without sufficient cause, which by this offer he now acknowledgeth. <\/P> After that she is defiled;<\/B> not simply and absolutely, as if her second marriage were a sin, but respectively, or as to her first husband, to whom she is as a defiled or unclean woman, that is, forbidden; for things forbidden are accounted and called unclean, Jdg 13:7<\/span>, because they may no more be touched or used than an unclean thing. <\/P> Thou shalt not cause the land to sin,<\/B> i.e. thou shalt not suffer such abominable lightness and lewdness to be practised, lest the people be polluted, and the land defiled and accursed by that means. <\/P> <\/p>\n Her former husband which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife<\/strong>,…. Though ever so desirous of it, and having heartily repented that he had put her away: this is the punishment of his fickleness and inconstancy, and was ordered to make men cautious how they put away their wives; since when they had so done, and they had been married to another, they could not enjoy them again even on the death of the second husband; yea, though she was only espoused to him, and he had never lain with her, as Ben Melech observes, it was forbidden the former husband to marry her; though if she had only played the whore, according to the same writer, and others a, she might return to him:<\/p>\n after that she is defiled<\/strong>; not by whoredom, for in that case she was not forbidden, as it is interpreted, but by her being married to another man; when she was defiled, not by him, or with respect to him, nor with regard to any other man, whom she might lawfully marry after the decease of her latter husband; but with respect to her first husband, being by her divorce from him, and by her marriage to another, entirely alienated and separated from him, and so prohibited to him; and thus R. Joseph Kimchi interprets this defilement of prohibition, things prohibited being reckoned unclean, or not lawful to be used:<\/p>\n for that [is] abomination before the Lord<\/strong>; for a man to take his wife again, after she had been divorced by him, and married to another man; and yet, such is the grace and goodness of God to his backsliding people, that he receives them when they return unto him their first husband, and forsake other lovers, Jer 3:1<\/span>;<\/p>\n and thou shalt not cause the land to sin which the Lord thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance<\/strong>; since if this was allowed, that men might put away their wives, and take them again at pleasure, and change them as often as they thought fit, no order could be observed, and the utmost confusion in families introduced, and lewdness encouraged, and which would subject the land and the inhabitants of it to many evils and calamities, as the just punishment thereof.<\/p>\n a Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Sotah, c. 2. sect. 6.<\/p>\n Ver. <\/em><\/strong>4. <\/strong>Her former husbandmay not take her again<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> To restrain them from the abuse of this permission, the law provides, that the husband, who had once put away his wife, should, upon her being married to another, be for ever incapable of having her again. The law considered her as defiled; i.e.<\/em> unclean, as to her first husband, by having been the wife of a second, and so forbidden to that first. See Act 10:14-15<\/span>. This intimates, that if she had not been married to another, but kept herself free, her husband might have taken her again to wife, if he were inclined so to do. Such, at least, is the opinion of Grotius, and several other learned interpreters. Had husbands been allowed to take their wives again, after being married to others, this might have produced the abominable practice of prostitution, by exchanging wives at pleasure, whereby the land would have been filled with pollutions, and the Lord provoked to inflict judgments upon it; and, therefore, the sacred writer adds, for that is abomination, <\/em>&c. Abarbanel says, that this custom was common among the Egyptians; and Selden observes, that Mahomet permitted his followers to take their wives again, after having been divorced even three times. The Turks, however, are not the only people who were deficient in delicacy upon this point; it is well known, that the Lacedemonians were guilty of shameful pollutions in this way. A person expressing surprise that no adulterers were to be heard of among that people, was answered, that “through the prevalence of the custom now mentioned, their very marriages were rank adulteries.” See Grotius on the place. <\/p>\n Deu 24:4 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 4. After that she is defiled.<\/strong> ] Or, Caused to he defiled, to wit, by her husband, who put her away first, he being her only lawful husband. Mat 5:32 <\/p>\n may not take her again. Compare Jer 3:1. Isa 50:1. <\/p>\n sin. See App-44. <\/p>\n the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4. <\/p>\n God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4. <\/p>\n Her former: Jer 3:1 <\/p>\n thou shalt: Lev 18:24-28, Jos 22:17, Jos 22:18 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 17:1 – for that Pro 6:16 – an Jer 32:35 – to cause<\/p>\n Deu 24:4. Her former husband may not take her again This is the punishment of his levity and injustice in putting her away without sufficient cause, which, by this offer, he now acknowledgeth. Defiled Not absolutely, as if her second marriage were a sin, but with respect to her first husband, to whom she is as a defiled or unclean woman; that is, forbidden; for things forbidden are accounted and called unclean, (Jdg 13:7,) because they may no more be touched or used than an unclean thing. Thou shalt not cause the land to sin Thou shalt not suffer such lightness to be practised, lest the people be polluted, and the land defiled and accursed by that means.<\/p>\n 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is {b} 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.<\/p>\n (b) Seeing that by divorcing her he judged her to be unclean and defiled.<\/p>\n 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. 4. after that she is defiled ] Ambiguous … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 24:4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5538","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5538"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5538\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"