What is the context?
The Lord challenges the idea that His people’s plight resulted from His debts or a complete abandonment of the relationship. He asks for a certificate of divorce and the name of a creditor to whom He supposedly sold them.
The explanation is given in the same verse: their iniquities and transgressions brought the separation. Their situation is not evidence that another power has purchased authority over the Lord or forced His hand.
The next questions concern His unanswered call and His ability to redeem. The images of sea and rivers drying and heavens clothed in darkness assert His power. The God who calls has not become unable to deliver.
How is this passage commonly understood?
The USCCB notes read the missing certificate as an answer to the complaint of complete abandonment: the bond remains, and the Lord still has power to deliver.
Henry and Wesley emphasize the people’s responsibility in this particular covenant address. The question is not whether God has become powerless, but how the people have answered His call.
The images therefore expose a false explanation of the crisis while leaving room for the promised redemption. The Lord’s right to call and His ability to rescue remain intact.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.