Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin.
1.0
It is not logical that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is concerning sexual sin
By WmTipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
In this writing we will show a logical argument to prove that Deut 24:1-4 cannot possibly be about the sexual sins of the wife/betrothed wife using the details of the origins of Deuteronomy itself.
Supporting Evidence
What were going to try to show is the depth of which this goes and the complete illogic of some views that say that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins by using the details of Deut origin....
Deuteronomy - Introduction to Deuteronomy
The ordinary name of the book is derived, through the Septuagint and Vulgate from that sometimes employed by the Jews, repetition of the Law, and indicates correctly enough the character and contents of the book.
The bulk of Deuteronomy consists of addresses spoken within the space of 40 days, and beginning on the first day of the 11th month in the 40th year.
-A Barnes
Deuteronomy - DEUTERONOMY, the second law, a title which plainly shows what is the object of this book, namely, a recapitulation of the law. It was given in the form of public addresses to the people;
-JFB
Deuteronomy -
This book repeats much of the history and of the laws contained in the three foregoing books: Moses delivered it to Israel a little before his death, both by word of mouth, that it might affect, and by writing, that it might abide. The men of that generation to which the law was first given were all dead, and a new generation was sprung up, to whom God would have it repeated by Moses himself, now they were going to possess the land of Canaan.
-M Henry
Deuteronomy - INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY
This book is sometimes called "Elleh hadebarim", from the words with which it begins; and sometimes by the Jews "Mishneh Torah", the repetition of the law; and so in the Syriac version, with which agrees the Arabic title of it; and when the Greeks, and we after them, call it "Deuteronomy", it is not to be understood of a second, a new, or another law, but of the law formerly delivered, but now repeated, and also more largely explained; to which are likewise added several particular laws, instructions, and directions; all which were necessary, on account of the people of Israel, who were now a new generation, that either were not born, or not at an age to hear and understand the law when given on Mount Sinai;
-J Gill
Preface to the Book of Deuteronomy
We have borrowed the name of this book, as in former cases, from the Vulgate Latin, Deuteronomium, as the Vulgate has done from the Greek version of the Septuagint, Δευτερονομιον, which is a compound term literally signifying the second law, because it seems to contain a repetition of the preceding laws, from which circumstance it has been termed by the rabbins משנה mishneh, the iteration or doubling.
It appears that both these names are borrowed from Deu_17:18, where the king is commanded to write him a copy of this law; the original is משנה התורה mishneh hattorah, a repetition or doubling of the law, which the Septuagint have translated το δευτερονομιον, this second law, which we, properly enough, translate a copy of the law: but in Hebrew, like the preceding books, it takes its name from its commencement, אלה הדברים Elleh Haddebarim, these are the words; and in the best rabbinical Bibles its running title is ספר דברים Sepher Debarim, the book of debarim, or the book of the words. Our Saxon ancestors termed it the after law.
-A Clarke
Now, let us note that it is agreed that Deut is basically a verbal repeating of the law (that apparently was also recorded in written form), and that some new things were added (such as we see with the regulation in Deut 24:1-4).
Let us secondly notice that it was given verbally over about a 40 day span of time by Moses in the desert to this new generation after the last had pretty much died out.
Thinking this thru logically, if Levitical law required the death of a wife, espoused or otherwise, who had committed sexual sin against her husband then a repetition of this fact in Deuteronomy is completely logical.
But we see that Moses added some items when he gave Deut, such as the regulation in Deut 24:1-4.
Now, logically, if the situation had actually changed and it was now DIVORCE that was to be the recourse for a wife being found not a virgin, do not we think it a bit odd to repeat the laws giving the death penalties for this crime (as repeated in spirit in Deut 22) if that penalty had been revoked by God or were to be within mere days of giving Deut 22:13-21 ?
Here is what Deut 22 lays out, its quite detailed compared to any Levitical counterpart.
Deu 22:13-21 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, (14) And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: (15) Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: (16) And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; (17) And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. (18) And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; (19) And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. (20) But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: (21) Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
And this is Deut 24:1-4, the passage a few state is amending/replacing Deut 22:13-21 above;
Deu 24:1-4 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. (2) And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (3) And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; (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.
God is made to look the fool here by believing that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins.
It would mean that He gave Deut 22:13-21 above then suddenly remembered a few days later that He had wanted to change her punishment to divorce instead of death then amended it in Deut 24:1-4....Whoops
Notice the repeating of this precept where a woman not betrothed (aka "bound in marriage") is concerned.
Here we have the levitical law in the matter.
Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
And here we have the precept repeated in Deuteronomy
Deu 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So we see that the concepts are precisely the same.
In Leviticus there is law that a 'wife' (a betrothed woman is her husbands 'wife' merely lacking home-taking/consummation) is to be put to death if she commits adultery with another man. Deut 22 repeats these precepts, and even gives a bit more color in the matter as to how they might be punished where the betrothed wife is concerned (see Deut 22:13-21 above).
*IF* this woman is not betrothed she must be married by this man.
*IF* she is a wife (betrothed or consummated), then death is her penalty under both precepts given.
If these false views were correct and Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins of this wife, WHY then would God knowingly have REPEATED Levitical laws in Deut 22, knowing that just a few days later He would be CHANGING the punishments to DIVORCE instead in Deut 24:1-4 ?
Couldnt an eternal, omnipotent, PERFECT God get it right the first time? Did He 'forget' that He was about to change her punishment for sexual sins against her husband, tell Moses to give the instruction to have her killed then go ' wait, scratch that..." just mere days later?
There is a terrible gaping hole in the logic in thinking that it was necessary to repeat that death was to be her penalty in Deut 22 *IF* it was the intent to change it to divorce....keeping in mind that Deut was given over 40 days to this new generation.. .a 'repeating' of the laws to these children of those who had committed such horrid crimes so that they could carry Gods laws in their hearts into the promise land.
If it were the case that God WERE actually removing the death punishment for the betrothed wife then it makes no sense to even give it to this new generation at all.
And frankly, as far as Ive studied, in Levitical law, it is only really a 'wife' who is mentioned as far as the death penalty and of course that includes the betrothed wife.
But we see that Deut 22 actually breaks it down quite into very clear detail....details NOT given in Levitical law.
Now, why did God waste His time not only repeating these laws from Leviticus IF His intent were to change her punishment from death to divorce, but actually ADD all the details about how she was to be punished in Deut 22:13-23 or so, when He would have KNOWN that in probably less than a week He would be changing those punishments to divorce instead of death ?
It would be illogical by human standards, let alone coming from an eternal, all-knowing God to not only repeat the law, but ADD greatly to its detail, only to REMOVE/CHANGE the law within what was probably no more than a week (between the giving of Deut 22 and Deut 24).
"Illogical" doesnt even remotely describe it...it must be offensive to God to call Him that ignorant.
No, logically Deut 24:1-4 simply cannot be about sexual sins and my guess is that is why, if you study this out, you will find very few, if any, who will try to make the claim that Deut 24:!-4 is about sexual sins already covered in Deut 22.
I wont even go into the fact that Deut 22:23-24 would still have been in effect meaning that while the husband would have been restrained from pushing the death penalty, any other Israelite who found this woman in sexual sin could have had her put to death.
Completely and illogical and utterly incapable of being harmonized with the facts from Gods whole word and the historical details..
.
