The Church Fathers on this verse

Deuteronomy 24:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

And he also hateth her, and hath given her a bill of divorce, and hath sent her out of his house or is dead:

Douay-Rheims

וּשְׂנֵאָהּ֮ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן֒ וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙ וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּית֑וֹ א֣וֹ כִ֤י יָמוּת֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָאַחֲר֔וֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָ֥הּ ל֖וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃

Hebrew (Masoretic text)

The Church Fathers on this verse

3 Church Fathers comment on this verse

John Chrysostom

4th centuryChurch Father

As an indication that He disapproved of the act and did not view it as a true union, but instead chose to accommodate their weakness, He stated that the first husband who had divorced her could not take her back as his wife “after she was defiled.” This remark clarifies that a second union, while the first husband is still alive, is more akin to defilement than to a legitimate marriage. He does not refer to it as a remarriage. Consider His words: He also provides a rationale, asserting that “for this is an abomination before the Lord.”

Cyrill of Alexandria

5th centuryChurch Father

It is unwise to engage a woman who has been separated from her spouse through a fault deemed permissible, especially when she has endured disgrace from another. This is indeed a foolish act, as it is written, “an adulteress is mad and wicked” (Proverbs 18:23). Just as it is prohibited to take pleasure in that which is clearly disgraceful and unequivocally condemned, it is equally wrong to malign what is honorable by labeling it as dishonorable. To bestow affection upon what should be shunned is as sinful as rejecting what is shameful to avoid. Therefore, “woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Thus, one should neither take back the absent individual nor allow any harm to come to the truth or to him who has yet to be revealed.

Jerome of Stridon

4th centuryChurch Father

Let this sister, who claims to have remarried another man due to violence, understand that if she desires to receive the body of Christ and avoid being labeled an adulteress, she must repent. Moreover, from the moment she decides to repent, she should not unite with her second husband, who truly is not a husband but an adulterer. If she finds this difficult and feels an attachment to the second man that she cannot sever, she should not overlook the suffering of the Lord and must heed the words of the Apostle: you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21). Furthermore, it is said: what fellowship does light have with darkness? What agreement is there between Christ and Belial (2 Cor. 6:15)?

Read more (175 words)

I present this as something newly articulated, although it is in fact an ancient truth, validated by the authority of the Old Testament. A woman who leaves her second husband and wishes to reconcile with her first is unable to do so. As it is written in Deuteronomy: If a man takes a wife and, after living with her, finds no favor in his eyes because of something shameful, he must write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her, and send her away from his house. Or let her second husband die, who has married her, as her former union is seen as defilement in the sight of the Lord your God; and do not defile the land that the Lord is giving you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1ff.).

Therefore, I urge you to call this woman to salvation. For decayed bodies require iron and cauterization, and when the physician acts with necessary severity in the name of mercy, it is not the fault of the healing practices but of the wounds themselves.