| I can only offer, but am happy to offer, Calvin's Commentary on the verse.
1. Where is that bill of divorcement? There are various interpretations of
this passage, but very few of the commentators have understood the
Prophet’s meaning. In order to have a general understanding of it, we must
observe that union by which the Lord everywhere testifies that his people
are bound to him; that is, that he occupies the place of a husband, and that
we occupy the place of a wife. It is a spiritual marriage, which has been
consecrated by his eternal doctrine and sealed by the blood of Christ. In
the same manner, therefore, as he takes us under his protection as a early
beloved wife, on condition that we preserve our fidelity to him by
chastity; so when we have been false to him, he rejects us; and then he is
said to issue a lawful divorce against us, as when a husband banished from
his house an adulterous wife.
Thus, when the Jews were oppressed by calamities so many and so great,
that it was easy to conclude that God had rejected and divorced them, the
cause of the divorce came to be the subject of inquiry. Now, as men are
usually eloquent in apologizing for themselves, and endeavor to throw
back the blame on God, the Jews also complained at that time about their
condition, as if the Lord had done wrong in divorcing them; because they
were far from thinking that the promises had been made void, and the
covenant annulled, by their crimes. They even laid the blame on their
ancestors, as if they were punished for the sins of others. Hence those
taunts and complaints which Ezekiel relates.
“Our fathers ate a sour grape, and our teeth are set on edge.”
(Ezekiel 18:2.)
Speeches of this kind being universally current among them, the Lord
demands that they shall produce the “bill of divorcement,” by means of
which they may prove that they are free from blame and have been
rejected without cause.
Now, a “bill of divorcement” was granted to wives who were unjustly
divorced; for by it the husband was constrained to testify that his wife had
lived chastely and honorably, so that it was evident that there was no
other ground for the divorce than that she did not please the husband.
Thus the woman was at liberty to go away, and the blame rested solely on
the husband, to whose sullenness and bad temper was ascribed the cause
of the divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1.) This law of divorcement, as
Ezekiel shews, (Matthew 19:8,) was given by Moses on account of
the hard-heartedness of that nation. By a highly appropriate metaphor,
therefore, the Lord shews that he is not the author of the divorce, but that
the people went away by their own fault, and followed their lusts, so that
they had utterly broken the bond of marriage. This is the reason why he
asks where is “that bill” of which they boasted; for there is emphasis in
the demonstrative pronoun, hz (zeh), that, by which he intended to expose
their idle excuses; as if he had said, that they throw off the accusation, and
lay blame on God, as if they had been provided with a defense, whereas
they had violated the bond of marriage, and could produce nothing to make
the divorce lawful.
Or who is the creditor to whom I sold you? By another metaphor he
demonstrates the same thing. When a man was overwhelmed by debt, so
that he could not satisfy his creditors, he was compelled to give his
children in payment. The Lord therefore asks, “Has he been constrained to
do this? Has he sold them, or given them in payment to another creditor?
Is he like spendthrifts or bad managers, who allow themselves to be
overwhelmed by debt?” As if he had said, “You cannot bring this reproach
against me; and therefore it is evident that, on account of your
transgressions, you have been sold and reduced to slavery.”
Lo, for your iniquities ye have been sold. Thus the Lord defends his
majesty from all slanders, and refutes them by this second clause, in which
he declares that it is by their own fault that the Jews have been divorced
and “sold.” The same mode of expression is employed by Paul, when he
says that we are “sold under sin,” (Romans 7:14,) but in a different
sense; in the same manner as the Hebrew writers are wont to speak of
abandoned men, whose wickedness is desperate. But here the Prophet
intended merely to charge the Jews with guilt, because, by their own
transgressions, they had brought upon themselves all the evils that they
endured.
If it be asked, “Did the Lord divorce his heritage? Did he make void the
covenant?” Certainly not; but the Lord is said to “divorce,” as he is
elsewhere said to profane, his heritage, (Psalm 89:39; Ezekiel 24:21,)
because no other conclusion can be drawn from
present appearances; for, when he did not bestow upon them his wonted
favor, it was a kind of divorce or rejection. In a word, we ought to attend
to these two contrasts, that the wife is divorced, either by the husband’s
fault, or because she is unchaste and adulterous; and likewise that children
are sold, either for their father’s poverty or by their own fault. And thus
the course of argument in this passage will be manifest.
Hope it helps.
__________________
John Leonard
Deacon: Mid-Cities Presbyterian OPC
Bedford, TX
|
Linear Mode
