John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 24

Although what relates to divorce was granted as an indulgence to the Jews, Christ declares that it was never in accordance with the Law, because it is directly repugnant to the first institution of God, from which a perpetual and inviolable rule must be sought.

It is a common saying that the laws of nature are indissoluble. God has declared once for all that the bond of union between husband and wife is closer than that of parent and child; therefore, if a son cannot shake off the paternal yoke, no cause can permit the dissolution of the connection a man has with his wife.

From this, it appears how great the perverseness of that nation was, which could not be restrained from dissolving a most sacred and inviolable bond. Meanwhile, the Jews improperly concluded from their impunity that what God did not punish (because of the hardness of their hearts) was lawful. Instead, they should have considered, according to Christ's answer, that man is not at liberty to separate those whom God has joined together (Matthew 19:6).

Still, God chose to make a provision for women who were cruelly oppressed, for whom it was better to be set free at once than to groan beneath a cruel tyranny their whole lives. Thus, in Malachi, divorce is preferred to polygamy, since it would be a more tolerable condition to be divorced than to endure a harlot and a rival (Malachi 2:14).

And undoubtedly, the bill or certificate of divorce, while it cleared the woman from all disgrace, cast some reproach on the husband. For he who confesses that he puts away his wife because she does not please him brings himself under the accusation of both moroseness and inconstancy. For what gross levity and disgraceful inconstancy it shows, that a husband should be so offended by some imperfection or disease in his wife as to cast away from him half of himself!

We see, then, that husbands were indirectly condemned by the certificate of divorce, since they thus committed an injury against their wives who were chaste and, in other respects, what they should be. On these grounds, God in Isaiah, to take away from the Jews all basis for complaint, bids them produce the certificate of divorce, if He had given any to their mother (Isaiah 1:1); as if to say, that His reason for rejecting them was just, because they had treacherously turned to ungodliness.

Some interpreters do not read these three verses continuously, but suppose the sense to be complete at the end of the first, in which the husband testifies that he divorces his wife for no offense, but because her beauty does not satisfy his lust. If, however, we pay closer attention, we will see that it is only one provision of the Law, namely, that when a man has divorced his wife, it is not lawful for him to marry her again if she has married another. The reason for the law is that, by prostituting his wife, he would be, as far as it was in his power, acting like a procurer. In this view, it is said that she was defiled because he had contaminated her body; for the liberty which he gave her could not abolish the first institution of God but rather, as Christ teaches, gave cause for adultery (Matthew 5:31 and 19:9). Thus, the Israelites were reminded that, although they divorced their wives with impunity, this license was by no means excused before God.

The immunity given here has as its purpose the awakening of that mutual love which may preserve the conjugal fidelity of husband and wife. For there is a danger that if a husband departs from his wife immediately after marriage, the bride, before she has become thoroughly accustomed to him, might be too prone to fall in love with someone else. A similar danger affects the husband, for in war and other expeditions, many things occur which tempt men to sin.

God, therefore, intends for the love of husband and wife to be fostered by their association for a whole year, so that mutual confidence may be established between them, and they may afterwards continually beware of all unchastity.

But that God should permit a bride to enjoy herself with her husband is no small proof of His indulgence.

Undoubtedly, the lust of the flesh must affect the connection of husband and wife with some amount of sin. Yet God not only pardons it but also covers it with the veil of holy matrimony, so that what is sinful in itself might not be imputed as such; indeed, He spontaneously allows them to enjoy themselves. What Paul says is consistent with this instruction:

Let the husband render to his wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband. Do not defraud one another, except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer (1 Corinthians 7:3, 5).

¹⁰⁷ Added from Fr..

The same punishment is here deservedly proclaimed against man-stealers as against murderers. For the condition of slaves was so wretched that liberty was more than half of life. Therefore, to deprive a man of such a great blessing was almost to destroy him.

Besides, it is not only man-stealing that is condemned here, but also the accompanying evils of cruelty and fraud—that is, if the one who had stolen a man had also sold him. Now, such a sale could hardly be made among the people themselves without the crime being immediately detected. And nothing could be more hateful than for God’s children to be alienated from the Church and delivered over to heathen nations.

Take heed in the plague of leprosy. I am aware of how greatly interpreters differ from each other and how variously they twist what Moses has written about leprosy. Some are too eagerly devoted to allegories. Others think that God, as a prudent Legislator, merely gave a commandment of a sanitary nature so that a contagious disease would not spread among the people.

This notion, however, is very poor and almost meaningless. It is briefly refuted by Moses himself, both when he recounts the history of Miriam’s leprosy and also when he assigns the cause why lepers should be put out of the camp: namely, that they might not defile the camp in which God dwelt, as he ranks them with those who have an issue and those defiled by the dead.

Therefore, I have thought it well, before attempting the full elucidation of the matter, to present two passages by way of preface, from which God’s design may more fully appear. When, in this passage from Deuteronomy, He commands the people to take heed and observe diligently the plague of leprosy, there can be no question that He thus ratifies what He had previously explained at greater length in Leviticus.

First of all, He refers the judgment of the matter to the priests, so that what they pronounce should be firm and unalterable. Secondly, He would have the priests—lest they pronounce rashly and according to their own wishes—follow simply what He prescribed to them. Thus, they are only to be ministers or heralds, while He alone, in His sovereign authority, is to be the Judge.

He confirms the law He imposes with a special example: He had cast out Miriam, the sister of Moses, for a time, so that her uncleanness during her leprosy would not defile the camp.

The view that some take—that He exhorts the people so that, through sin, they would not bring upon themselves the same evil as Miriam—is not to the point. But what I have stated makes excellent sense: namely, that God’s command, by which He prohibited Miriam from entering the camp, was to have the force and weight of a perpetual law, because He thus ordained what He would always have done.