A little study I did on Deut 24:1

[_foc]

I did this study the other day to see if 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 is actually what the pharisees believed or if its sexual sin as some folks believe.
I thought Id post it here and see what ideas folks could give on it....

this isnt 'self promotion' or spam....I really like to toss my thoughts out there and see what folks have to say....iron sharpens iron, as we all know Any thoughts are very welcome as long as they are in line with scripture (i get enough of nonscriptural responses with folks I debate )

thanks in advance to those who take the time to give it a look
=================================================

"That She Find No Favor In His Eyes Because He Hath Found Some Uncleaness in Her"

This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife...Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with the supposed allowance for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by corrrecting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

================================================
We will look at the phrase "ervah dabar" in this article.
Some try to assert that "some uncleaness" ("ervah dabar") in Deuteronomy 24:1 is refering to sexual sins of a wife because the word is used in that manner so often in the Old Testament.

Here is ervah dabar in Deut 24:1 :

Deu 24:1 When3588 a man376 hath taken3947 a wife,802 and married1166 her, and it come to pass1961 that518 she find4672 no3808 favor2580 in his eyes,5869 because3588 he hath found4672 some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write3789 her a bill5612 of divorcement,3748 and give5414 it in her hand,3027 and send7971 her out of his house.4480, 1004

This is the word 'some' just before 'uncleaness'

H1697
dâbâr
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner




Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it.
So if we wanted to get technical, it says "he has found unclean speech" in her.
If we want to say it has to be sexually oriented, then what is actually said is "he has found sexual speech in her".
If we take the wording literally and precisely it shows that he has found some indecent (sexual?) speech in her or "has found her speaking indecently" as the case might be.


The phrase "some uncleaness" is "ervah debar" in Hebrew.
We see this very same use of "ervah debar" used just one chapter before in Deut:23 in the phrase "unclean thing" (ervah debar).

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
(Deu 23:12-14)

(in laymans terms, take a shovel with you, dig a hole and when you have relieved yourself, bury it)

Here the phrase "ervah dabar" isn't restricted to the fornications as some assert that ervah always means, but is clearly being used blanketly against all uncleanness in the camp (the example given being human excrement).

In fact, it isn't until verse 17 that the harlots/whores and sexual sin are brought into the conversation. This is probably why the scholars don't believe that "ervah debar" is about sexual sins of the wife in Deut 24:1-4.

Seeing that those sins are covered already just two chapters previously and that there are terrible contractions caused by trying to assert that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins, including Deut 22:23-24 that presents that the woman might still be put to death by anyone else other than the husband if caught sinning against her husband in this manner.

Given that the phrase is exactly the same, in Deut 24:1 as it is in 23:14, we can conclude, just as the translators did, that it isnt necessarily in reference to fornication but of a more broader understanding of 'uncleaness'...just as the Jews divorced for and just what they were asking Jesus about in Matthew 19.

If we were to use the meaning of the phrase "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 as it appears in Deut 23:12-14 then what this "uncleaness" he has found in her is.....well, Im sure you readers can connect the dots.
The main thing is that the phrase used in Deut 24:1 has nothing to do with her sexual sin but just a general uncleaness that has caused her to find no favor in his eyes...

[Guest]

Hello,

Thanks for your posting and for your contribution to understanding this passage.

On a minor point: it would be unnecessary to construe dabar as referring to speech. The common and natural meaning of the Hebrew term in this setting is "a matter" or "an issue." Thus, dabar ervah would be "a matter of shame/filthiness" - or, perhaps, "a matter of nakedness." This latter translation is probably the springboard to understanding the pretext as sexual in nature, but as you have pointed out, it need not be understood in such terms.

Shalom,
Emmet

[_foc]

Hello,

Thanks for your posting and for your contribution to understanding this passage.

On a minor point: it would be unnecessary to construe dabar as referring to speech.

Absolutely agree. Its use in Deut 23 doesn't seem to be limited to speech at all.
My intent was simply to show that ervah dabar doesnt necessarily mean a physical act as some try to assert is meant in Deut 24:1

The common and natural meaning of the Hebrew term in this setting is "a matter" or "an issue." Thus, dabar ervah would be "a matter of shame/filthiness" - or, perhaps, "a matter of nakedness." This latter translation is probably the springboard to understanding the pretext as sexual in nature, but as you have pointed out, it need not be understood in such terms.

Shalom,
Emmet

I agree that ervah alone does mean sexual sin in many instances. There are a couple times where it is more allegorical, not meaning sexual sin at all.
But this phrase 'ervah dabar', from what I found, is only used twice (sadly enough) in the OT. So if we use the context of its other use, we conclude that it doesnt refer to 'sexual sin' but uncleaness in general. Thus we conclude that Moses isnt refering to sexual sins, seeing that those were dealt with in a few passages, including just two chapters prior in Deut 22, leaving us to conclude quite conclusively that 'ervah dabar' isnt about sexual sins at all..otherwise 'ervah' alone would have been quite adequate in relaying that thought.

And again, since sexual sins are already covered in Deut 22 (amoung other places), there is no reason to believe that Moses is speaking about those sins.

My post below explains my thoughts about what 'some uncleaness' is about in Deut 24:1.

[_foc]

A little background on divorce.

The error made by some teachings is that they believe, or seem to, that Deut 24:1-4 is a permission to divorce and thus it lays out the allowances for divorce. This simply is not true.

Putting away a wife had been going on for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason (among other sexual immoralities), which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.

If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. Nor could they take widows, harlots, etc. They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.

These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.

When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for this putting away that had already been going on. He isnt laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occuring in Israel.

Thus he isnt 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once REmarried she could never be his wife again.

Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasonings for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous 'uncleaness' (ceremonial uncleaness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasnt a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously or at all).

To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.

The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.

When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they dont start all making sense to you.

[Guest]

Foc,

Could you give some new testament scripture as well?
I read the old of course but would appreciate the new too.

[_foc]

Foc,

Could you give some new testament scripture as well?
I read the old of course but would appreciate the new too.

Not exactly sure what youre looking for.
The point the OP is making is about OT scripture given, not any NT passages, concerning 'ervah dabar' which is presented once in deut 23 and once in Deut 24:1.

What is it that youre looking for in particular?

[Guest]

Hi foc,

I found your article interesting as I'm always curious about how the ancient Hebrews lived. I can't quite figure out what difference it makes for modern followers of Jesus, or how deeper understanding of the statute in Deut. 24 changes what Jesus said in Matthew 19.

Here is your introduction to your article:

"That She Find No Favor In His Eyes Because He Hath Found Some Uncleaness in Her"

This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife...Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with the supposed allowance for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by corrrecting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Here you mention "some people" who believe certain things about the passage, the Pharisees, and what Jesus was teaching. Who are these people, and now that you've proven them mistaken, what different interpretation of Matthew 19:3-10 do you see?

[_foc]

Hi foc,

I found your article interesting as I'm always curious about how the ancient Hebrews lived. I can't quite figure out what difference it makes for modern followers of Jesus, or how deeper understanding of the statute in Deut. 24 changes what Jesus said in Matthew 19.

Here is your introduction to your article:

"That She Find No Favor In His Eyes Because He Hath Found Some Uncleaness in Her"

This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife...Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with the supposed allowance for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by corrrecting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Here you mention "some people" who believe certain things about the passage, the Pharisees, and what Jesus was teaching. Who are these people, and now that you've proven them mistaken, what different interpretation of Matthew 19:3-10 do you see?

I see

This group Im refering to tries to state things like 'putting away' began in either Deut 22 or 24, depending on which variety you run in to (Sealedeternal, if you know of him, is of one of these varieties...Deut 22 I believe).

This false foundation causes them to believe that this 'allowance' for divorce is what Jesus is refering to in Matt 19....'except for fornication', as He states.
There is no such 'allowance' in the law for putting away a wife, betrothed or consummated, for sexual sins. The law prescribed death alone for that sin.

The problem, as I show conclusively on my website, is that this view tries to overlook that putting away (or 'divorce', if you will) was going on at least as far back as Leviticus 21, since the priests are fobidden to take wives put away from thier husbands.

Deut 22 deals with sexual sins.
Deut 24:1-4, "some uncleaness", deals with the frivolous divorce Moses had been permitting.
Its two entirely unrelated things.

How this affects us today is to put this 'for any cause' divorce from Matthew 19 into its proper perspective.
If Deut 24:1 isnt about divorce for sexual sin (those sins were already dealt with in Deut 22), then this means that what the pharisees are asking Jesus about in Matt 19 (and by extention Mark 10, being Marks record of the same event) is literally "for every cause' divorce (for 'SOME uncleaness as defined by the man who is putting her away...precisely what the Jews had been doing).

This affects those doctrines today that rely on the erroneous foundation that Deut 24:1 and its phrase 'some uncleaness' is a reference to divorce for sexual sins. That foundation is what is used to say that Jesus is, in Matt 19, doing away with ending a marriage for sexual sins, even of a betrothed wife, when in fact Jesus hasn't done that at all, but merely done away with the 'for every cause' divorce that was going on with the Hebrews....thus why He is able to end His speech with 'except for fornication' and present that He (aka God) still sees sexual sin as a breach of the marital covenant (as seen in Deut 22 among other passages).

Not sure if this answers your question clearly enough. Let me know if it doesn't make sense and Ill try again. I have had a bit of problem assuming that everyone has studied the matter out or is on the same page, so I realize I may need to go into a bit more depth. Please let me know if this is the case

[Guest]

Oh, ok ... you are answering a group or individuals who argue that there is no biblical grounds for divorce and are using the term in Deut. 24 to suggest this by saying that it means sexual immorality only, so when Jesus makes his speech in Matthew 19/Mark 10, he is, in fact, abolishing all divorce. (I need to stop for a breath.)

I have no idea who "Sealedeternal" is, but I gather that he takes the position that no divorce is acceptable and if a couple divorces, no remarriage is legitimate, am I right?

Thanks for the clarification; it is very clear and makes perfect sense (assuming that my summary in the first paragraph is correct!) Were you under the impression that some of the posters on this forum might hold the same views that "Sealedeternal" does? I don't think I've ever read anything like that here.

[_foc]

Oh, ok ... you are answering a group or individuals who argue that there is no biblical grounds for divorce and are using the term in Deut. 24 to suggest this by saying that it means sexual immorality only, so when Jesus makes his speech in Matthew 19/Mark 10, he is, in fact, abolishing all divorce. (I need to stop for a breath.)

Yes
That is part of the problem with my writing. I assume too much and dont fill in enough blanks. Im trying to work on that, so Im slowly reworking some of my stuff, but it will take some time.

I have no idea who "Sealedeternal" is, but I gather that he takes the position that no divorce is acceptable and if a couple divorces, no remarriage is legitimate, am I right?

correct.

Thanks for the clarification; it is very clear and makes perfect sense (assuming that my summary in the first paragraph is correct!) Were you under the impression that some of the posters on this forum might hold the same views that "Sealedeternal" does? I don't think I've ever read anything like that here.

Well, this chap, and many like him, get around. So I wanted to post that article, and possibly others in the future, to give something for folks to fall back on just in the case that those doctrines to present themselves here (as they do on most forums).
If you all have been lucky enough to dodge that bullet here, praise the Lord for showing mercy here because those varied doctrines out there wreak havoc not only on forums such as this one, but also on marriages where the believer hasn't yet studied the matter to its only logical conclusion.

I also wanted to post the study for feedback. Iron sharpens iron, you know, so getting others thoughts on it help me to tweak my thoughts, especially if they can present a piece of evidence that I may have overlooked (the bible is a really huge book to keep all that data readily at hand in ones own mind ).

If you have any thoughts on the OP, Id love to hear your imput