Giving her the boot for cause

[Maddog]

Deut 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:
What would be the "uncleanness" that is spoken of that might warrant him giving her a divorce and the boot? What are we missing? -M

 

[Shiloh.F]

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭3‬-‭10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Matthew 19:3-10 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made | New King James Version (NKJV) |

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made

bible.com

 

[NVIII]

I know this has been discussed in many places in this forum. I'm having trouble finding the mother thread right now, but here's a wee child post: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/divorce-and-remarriage-am-i-doomed.16741/post-257784

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that "uncleanness" is a bad translation, as is "divorce", and you are not really missing anything because the putting away could be for something as simple as being a bad cook. The intent was for the woman to revert to her father's house for remedial training, to be returned after a time and some improvement. (Bear in mind most women were wed well before modern "adulthood" and sometimes they just weren't completely prepared to be a first wife, and this would have been the primary purpose of this law, the father's house being the responsible party for the woman's preparation.) I'm pretty sure the account of Sampson's first wife and the aftermath of the wedding party is an example of this being played out, as well as the unintended part where the father "misunderstands" and gives her to another man.

 

[NS4Liberty]

From my understanding, even the Jewish Rabbis in the first century did not know exactly what was meant. That is why you had the opposing schools of Shammai and Hillel stating different standards for divorce.

BereanPatriot proposes that "indecency" is the display of sexual organs. So if your wife flashes people at Mardi Gras you can divorce her.

It seems odd to me ancient Jewish rabbis would disagree if it was as clear as BereanPatriot seems to think it is. I'm not totally convinced, but it is a plausible argument.

The phrase "some indecency" in the Hebrew is "dāḇār ʿervâ" The same exact phrase is used in the previous chapter discussing army encampment regulations Deut. 23:14: 14 "Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you."

According to BereanPatriot, I expect this would mean the men of the camp could not walk around camp naked. The NASB95 has a footnote the literal translation is "nakedness of anything". It is interesting the previous verse is addressing going to the bathroom outside of the encampment. I think these two verses could even logically be linked so that the reason for going to the bathroom outside of the camp is because God doesn't want to step in anything as he walks around the camp.

I think one of the big problems I have with deciding what it means, is it is used both figuratively and literally" "nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish)" (source) I'm just not sure we have enough context to decide for sure one way or another.

It is an interesting conversation, but I am wary of anyone who claims to have a definite answer to something people closer in time and culture were not even sure of.

 

[NS4Liberty]

This explanation is actually very persuasive including the explanation of Jesus' comment on hardheartedness.

"The phrase (remember the importance of collocations) "an indecent thing" occurs elsewhere only in Deut 23:15 where it is used to refer euphemistically to excrement that could pollute the camp. Consequently, we could not conclude that the word had to do with immoral behavior on the part of the woman. More likely it is a reference to a distasteful condition. For example, if a woman had a menstrual dysfunction and was regularly bleeding, she would be rendered perpetually unclean and could not be approached by her husband for childbearing (cf. Lev 15:14, 25). It is easy to see how such a condition could bring disfavor and lead to divorce. Though her condition would not be her fault, the divorce by her husband would make this humiliating situation public knowledge. Yet, it is not so bad that another husband was not willing to take her in—an important aspect of the legislation."

"This has nothing to do with any moral behavior of the woman (she is not restricted), and has nothing to do with the second marriage (that was only in the legislation to demonstrate that someone else could live with it, implying the first husband’s hardheartedness). It is interesting too that Jesus cites the case in relation to hardheartedness (Mt. 19:8). The legislation is here to protect an unfortunate and vulnerable woman from a predatory husband who has already disgraced her."

 

[NS4Liberty]

I came across an article claiming that "ʿervâ" is related to the Greek "porneia ("πορνεία"). If that were the case, I would expect the Septuagint to use the word porneia in these passages, but they do not. The Septuagint uses aschēmosynē "ἀσχημοσύνη" in Deut. 23:14 and "ἄσχημον" (No Strong's Number) in Deut. 24:1.

 

[Mark C]

The phrase "some indecency" in the Hebrew is "dāḇār ʿervâ" The same exact phrase is used in the previous chapter discussing army encampment regulations Deut. 23:14: 14 "Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you...

As much of the 'midrash' also notes, the previous verse tells folks to take a shovel with them, so as to bury what comes out the back end, and thus 'keep the camp clean'. (No, it's not just the army camp. He wanted all of Israel's entire camp to be clean, and ultimately disease-free.)

I have contended (some might even say ad nauseum) that the consistent failure of 'the whore church' to recognize the difference between "put away" (shalach) and 'divorce' (the PROCESS described in Deut. 24:1-3, twice, which INCLUDES but is not the same as "putting away") is a huge part of the confusion.

(Perhaps intentional, since the northern kingdom, progenitor of the whore church, WAS in fact not ONLY 'put away' but ALSO given a 'get' (certificate) for cause. And it was NOT the hardness of YHVH's heart - He gave her every opportunity, and STILL says 'return to Me' - it was entirely her fault. Still is.)


So: Bottom line, I will suggest. (Your mileage may vary...)

A man may "put away" his wife for anything he sees as "unclean-ness". BUT HE SHOULD NOT!!!!!!

(And, that, I suggest, was Yahushua's repeated point.)

If he does 'put her away', and she does what logically follows, he "bears her guilt." Including causing her to commit adultery (properly translated).

And (amazing how this obvious point is ignored) - if she has ALREADY committed adultery - he doesn't owe her so much as "don't let the door hit you on the you-know-what on the way out." He can't very well MAKE her into any more of what she already is. She is, after all, already deserving of death. (There is a test in Numbers 5, if he doesn't know for sure, even.) But, in any case, HE CAN FORGIVE HER, too.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think that the general meaning of "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is reasonably clear - it's about something to do with the genitals. It's sexual in some way. But that's not exactly specific.

nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish)

The LXX confirms this.

I came across an article claiming that "ʿervâ" is related to the Greek "porneia ("πορνεία"). If that were the case, I would expect the Septuagint to use the word porneia in these passages, but they do not. The Septuagint uses aschēmosynē "ἀσχημοσύνη" in Deut. 23:14 and "ἄσχημον" (No Strong's Number) in Deut. 24:1.

The definition of ἀσχημοσύνη is "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda:—shame, that which is unseemly." - essentially the same definition as the Hebrew.

Nevertheless, because you can debate the meaning of an individual word in a brief passage:

even the Jewish Rabbis in the first century did not know exactly what was meant

So Jesus explained it again clearly, using a different word with the same general meaning:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery

He defined the just reason for divorce clearly as being "sexual immorality" - "porneia". If we view Jesus in this case as a preacher explaining what the scriptures mean in practice (as any good preacher should), it is all completely clear and there is no disagreement between him and Moses. To explain what something means you say the same thing using different words - which is what Jesus did. He clarified that Moses did not use that word in a figurative sense to mean "anything the husband doesn't like", but was using it in a literal sense to mean actual sexual immorality. Now there is no doubt over what the justifiable reason for divorce is, because we have the same thing explained multiple times in different ways, each of which adds to our understanding.

A woman who commits sexual immorality can be divorced for cause.

 

[Earth_is-]

I think that the general meaning of "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is reasonably clear - it's about something to do with the genitals. It's sexual in some way. But that's not exactly specific.

The LXX confirms this.

The definition of ἀσχημοσύνη is "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda:—shame, that which is unseemly." - essentially the same definition as the Hebrew.

Nevertheless, because you can debate the meaning of an individual word in a brief passage:

So Jesus explained it again clearly, using a different word with the same general meaning:

He defined the just reason for divorce clearly as being "sexual immorality" - "porneia". If we view Jesus in this case as a preacher explaining what the scriptures mean in practice (as any good preacher should), it is all completely clear and there is no disagreement between him and Moses. To explain what something means you say the same thing using different words - which is what Jesus did. He clarified that Moses did not use that word in a figurative sense to mean "anything the husband doesn't like", but was using it in a literal sense to mean actual sexual immorality. Now there is no doubt over what the justifiable reason for divorce is, because we have the same thing explained multiple times in different ways, each of which adds to our understanding.

A woman who commits sexual immorality can be divorced for cause.

That word even implies purposeful public exposure of the sexual parts of her body. So if she purposely goes out in public exposing her breasts for other men to see, then that would be a cause for a divorce.

 

[FollowingHim]

That word even implies purposeful public exposure of the sexual parts of her body. So if she purposely goes out in public exposing her breasts for other men to see, then that would be a cause for a divorce.

Genitals specifically, not breasts - check the definition. Whether breasts are considered sexual or common is a social construct, hence the general practice in tropical countries of women being as topless as men. Scripture only says women should cover their genitals - and their heads...

I'm not saying it's ok for women to go around topless in a Western setting. That would be disobedience of the standards set by her husband. I am just being careful to be true to the text and ensure the meaning is communicated clearly. The word implies genital exposure.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Genitals specifically, not breasts - check the definition. Whether breasts are considered sexual or common is a social construct, hence the general practice in tropical countries of women being as topless as men. Scripture only says women should cover their genitals - and their heads...

I'm not saying it's ok for women to go around topless in a Western setting. That would be disobedience of the standards set by her husband. I am just being careful to be true to the text and ensure the meaning is communicated clearly. The word implies genital exposure.

This is important to understand for breastfeeding mothers. Otherwise a woman could not breastfeed her baby in public without being at risk of sinning, even whilst being as discrete as possible.

 

[Hisdaughter]

I was thinking about this post and thought about something…Has anyone ever wondered why the Bible talks about setting aside a woman for having something unclean about her, but, women are supposed to be the example if the husband is not following God/YHWH? I am loving everyone’s responses btw.