(Isa. 50:1; Deut. 24:1–4; D&C 133:66–69; refer to Latter-day Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Bassett, under 3 Ne. 12:31–32)
The question posed to Israel about her divorced status is a metaphorical reference to the law of divorce given in Deuteronomy 24:1–4. Under this law, if a wife was found unfaithful (unclean) her husband could dissolve the marriage by giving her a “bill of divorcement.” Even though Israel had been unfaithful to her husband—the Lord—He had never given her such a document; she was never officially divorced… . The Lord further states that neither has Israel been sold into bondage to relieve a debt, for He has no creditors. (At that time, one in debt could sell his children into servitude to pay the debt. See Ex. 21:7; Neh. 5:1–5… . In speaking to latter-day Israel, who is to be redeemed, reference is made to her “mother” who was “put away” (separated) because of her “transgressions.” Some have suggested this implies ancient Israel (the mother) was divorced (put away) but that the bill of divorcement does not apply to modern Israel. However, it appears that ancient “mother Israel” left her Husband (put herself away).
(Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Isaiah Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 206, 208.)
In the time of Isaiah, if a man was pressed by his creditors, he had the possibility of relieving his debt by selling his children as slaves (Ex. 21:7; Neh. 1–5; Matt. 18:25). And if he died, a creditor might take his children as payment (2 Kgs. 4:1). This slavery was not permanent; the person was indentured to work for a fixed number of years. In answer to the question “To whom has the Lord ever been in debt?” Isaiah answers that the Lord is indebted to no one and therefore has not been forced to sell Israel; Israel’s separation and captivity is her own fault.
(Victor L. Ludlow, Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 420.)
These children will have a happy home and sealed parents yet. In the last days that bill of divorcement against their mother will be set aside, and so will the demands of any creditors. The Lord is in debt to no one, so neither will his children be. He alone can pay the price for the salvation of Israel and the establishment of Zion. His wrath is turned away, and he will not cast off his bride or allow her children to be sold into slavery.
As for the shortening of his hands, the scriptures repeatedly testify that the reach of God’s arm is more than adequate, the extent of his grace entirely sufficient. He can always claim and embrace the Israel that he loves. In spite of their unfaithfulness, his hand remains constant, not shortened or slackened or withheld.
(Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 84–85.)
This passage employs several well-known images from the Old Testament to make its points: (1) a husband (Jehovah), (2) a wife (Israel), (3) a bill of divorce, and (4) the sale of personal property, in this case a member of one’s own family, to satisfy a debt. Both the divorcing and paying a debt by selling a family member for domestic service have Old Testament relevance (see Deut. 24:1–2; 2 Kgs. 4:1). The picture given here, then, is of a wife who felt she had been divorced by her husband or sold into service as described. The husband, however, rightly asks, “Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement? Or to which of my creditors have I sold you?”
The Lord, of course, had not set Israel aside permanently but only until she repented of her wrong doings. Most certainly, the Lord has no creditors since all men are in debt to him. The perceived divorce or sale was merely supposition of Israel’s part. Besides, the breach between the husband and his wife was clearly the result of her doings and not his… .
When the Savior appeared on earth among the nation of Judah, she rejected him. That is the apparent meaning of Isaiah’s words, that “there was none to answer” or “no man” to respond. The Lord insists that in spite of this rejection by his chosen one—Judah—his power or arm is not curtailed.
(Leland Gentry, Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1989], 167–68.)