Deuteronomy 24:1 (KJV)

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: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Matthew 19:9 (NKJV)

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.”

Christ says you can only put away your wife because of sexual immorality & Moses says you can put them away because of uncleanliness in her, could sexual immorality & uncleanliness in her be referring to the same thing in the above texts? The Hebrew word uncleanliness ערוה literally refers to (nudity,nakedness),could this phrase be referring to sexual immorality on the part of the wife?

8 Answers 8


Caution and concordance are your friends.

The MT has:

כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו

So the Hebrew word behind KJV's Deuteronomy 24:1 "some uncleanness" is "ערות דבר".

The first caution is that the exact idiom is used in one other instance in the OT, Deuteronomy 23:14, following 13 (Hebrew Bible Deuteronomy 23:14-15) (NIV):

As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.


For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ, וְלֹא יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ

This doesn't seem to have to do about sexual anything.

The second note is that although the preponderance of usages of ערות in the pentateuch is the context of forbidden sexual relations, that preponderance does not mean that forbidden sexual relations are the primary meaning of the term. In fact, the term ערוה when used to indicate forbidden relations could be a euphemism for משגל. Consider the following examples of ערוה in other contexts.

Genesis 42:9 and 12:

Then he remembered his dreams about them and said to them, "You are spies! You have come to see where our land is unprotected."

וַיִּזְכֹּר יוֹסֵף אֵת הַחֲלֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר חָלַם לָהֶם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם מְרַגְּלִים אַתֶּם לִרְאוֹת אֶת עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם


"No!" he said to them. "You have come to see where our land is unprotected."

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם לֹא כִּי עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם לִרְאוֹת

And Isaiah 20:4

so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared--to Egypt's shame.

כֵּן יִנְהַג מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת שְׁבִי מִצְרַיִם וְאֶת גָּלוּת כּוּשׁ נְעָרִים וּזְקֵנִים עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף וַחֲשׂוּפַי שֵׁת עֶרְוַת מִצְרָיִם

There are many other examples that indicate that the primary meaning of ערוה is "nakedness" or "shame", in both the figurative sense and the bodily sense. So, you can't conclude that Deuteronomy 24:1 intends only sexual immorality. There are plenty of other types of untoward behavior that could be included in the figurative sense of "nakedness".

A third caution is that there is already a provision for a husband who suspects a wife of infidelity in Numbers 5.

The fourth caution is in careful reading of Deuteronomy 24:1. The verse indicates that the husband must divorce his wife in these circumstances. The verse does not provide any option except divorce.

A fifth caution is to read Matthew 19:9 in its historical context, that of the internal Jewish debate in the late second temple period between the more traditional and conservative camps such as the Zadokees, Baithosees and the Beit Shamai wing of the Pharisees, and the more liberal and humanistic mainline Pharisees. The former reduced the scope of ערוה in Deuteronomy 24:1 to only sexual immorality. The latter, who became the predominant Pharisaic camp, saw the figurative use of ערוה in scripture and therefore interpreted it to mean any type of untoward behavior in this verse..

  • 2
    "Caution and concordance are your friends." Excellent advice. +1 Jan 14, 2017 at 18:52

The term עֶרְוָה means nakedness, shame, indecency, improper behavior, exposed, or undefended. [6172-ervah]. If the term is taken literally, a man finding his wife naked or engaged in improper behavior might assume infidelity.

The word is used one other time in Deuteronomy:

Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent (עֶרְוַ֣ת) among you and turn away from you. (23:14 ESV)

This describes finding those who should be holy in a state of nakedness or engaged in improper behavior. Likewise in marriage there are proper and improper times a man would expect to see his wife's nakedness. If improper or unexpected nakedness raises the question of infidelity and another man is not present, there is a legal way for a man to deal with the issue of suspected infidelity (Numbers 5:11-31).

The words of Jesus should be put into context:

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed 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.” (Matthew 19:8-9 ESV)

Divorce was added because of the hardness of men’s hearts. According to Jesus proven infidelity is the only reason for divorce yet He recognizes the man-made practice of divorce for other reasons.

The question should also consider the context of Deuteronomy:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency (עֶרְוַ֣ת) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. (24:1-4 ESV)

Commenting on this passage Bernard M. Levinson states:

This complex law theologically applied by two prophets (Isa. 50.1; Jer 3.1, 8), addresses only the specific case of remarriage after divorce to a wife who subsequently married another; it does not prevent remarriage in general. No general laws of either marriage or divorce survive from ancient Israel; biblical law includes special cases that raise particular ethical or legal issues.1

As Levinson notes, this is about remarriage after divorce, not the grounds for divorce. If the divorced woman takes a second husband she will be naked before him (the reason given for the divorce). If the first man were to remarry her, he would be invalidating the reason he gave the divorce since she was now in fact "defiled" by the second man.

If the divorce is done on the basis of the what the man sees as her improper nakedness and he gives her a certificate of divorce, he cannot remarry her after she (legally) has been naked before another man. That would be an abomination before the LORD. In reality, the issue of improper nakedness implies but does not prove infidelity. What Jesus says is that the hardness of men's heart causes them to divorce for other reasons.

There is continuity between Deuteronomy and Matthew in terms of the future actions of the man who divorces his wife for reasons other than proven infidelity:

  • Deuteronomy: Cannot remarry his wife after she marries another man
  • Matthew: Cannot marry a different woman.

The man who divorces for reasons other than proven infidelity is legally prevented from sexual relations after divorce unless he remarries his first wife, which is only possible if she does not marry a different man. In other words, the man's legal future (in terms of sexual relations) is dependent on his divorced wife's fidelity to him.

1. Bernard M. Levinson, The Jewish Study Bible, 2004 p.420


According to the apparatus of the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, scholars do not agree on what, exactly, ערות דבר means in the context of Deuteronomy 24:1 (1st ed., p. 420n). The JPS Tanakh translates the phrase "obnoxious thing". In any case, New Testament authors generally refer to the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament and not the Hebrew version (and certainly not the Masoretic Text, which did not exist until several centuries after Christ).

In the Septuagint we find the phrase ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα (aschemon pragma) - "unbecoming thing". The word ἀσχήμων appears in three other places in the Septuagint (following Brenton's translation):

Genesis 34:7 LXX

And the sons of Jacob came from the plain; and when they heard, the men were deeply pained, and it was very grievous to them, because the man wrought folly in Israel, having lain with the daughter of Jacob, and so it must not be.

2 Maccabees 9:2

For he had entered the city called Persepolis, and went about to rob the temple, and to hold the city; whereupon the multitude running to defend themselves with their weapons put them to flight; and so it happened, that Antiochus being put to flight of the inhabitants returned with shame [adverbial form].

Wisdom of Solomon 2:20

Let us condemn him with a shameful death

It is also the word that Paul chooses in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (12:23), which reads, in the King James translation:

And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

The ambiguity of the Masoretic Text coupled with how the phrase was translated by Jews into Greek seem to indicate that Deuteronomy 24:1 did not really refer to any kind of "uncleanness", despite the KJV rendering.

Schaff's edition of Augustine's book on the Sermon on the Mount offer this insight into the reference (p.22n):

The law permitted divorce for “some uncleanness” (Deut. 24:1). In the time of Christ divorce was allowed on trivial grounds. While Schammai interpreted the Deuteronomic prescription of moral uncleanness or adultery, Hillel interpreted it to include physical uncleanness or unattractiveness. A wife’s cooking her husband’s food unpalatably he declared to be a legitimate cause for dissolution of the marriage bond. Opposing the loose views current, Christ declared that it was on account of the “hardness of their hearts” that Moses had suffered them to put away their wives, and asserted adultery to be the only allowable reason for divorce.

  • +1 It is likely, in my view, that a wife who was a poor cook, say, would bring shame on her husband, and the hard-hearted view would be to use the law as a means of disposing of her. I'm sure there was no limit to what a man could suggest as shameful behaviour in his wife, if he had a mind to get rid of her.
    – enegue
    Jan 17, 2017 at 0:22

The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to record Joseph's reactions to Mary's pregnancy in Matt. 1:18-20... He considered her to have committed fornication. He had two options in handling the situation. The first was making her a public example that the Mosaic Law allowed- Deut. 22:13-21. Not willing to do that he was minded to use the second option Divorce that was permitted in Deut. 24:1-4. This "some uncleanness" was discovered with the first sexual relation, the bride here not being a virgin, thus fornication had been committed. Contemporary dictionaries of the 1611 King James Version, Edmund Coote's, 1596, "fornication- vncleannes betweene single persons." and Robert Cawdrey, 1604, "fornication- vncleannes betweene single persones". Deut. 24;1 appears to be an addendum to give the new husband a release from the "public example" situation in Deut. 22:13-21. These two cases actually were not commands, the husband could have accepted his new bride. The construction of the sentences, indicate how to handle the situations if they came up. (By the advise of the angel, Joseph received Mary).Note: If it was proven that the bride in Deut. 22:13-21 was a virgin, the husband could never divorce her. Why? Because she had not committed fornication. The same is true in the case found in Deut. 22:28-29, this evidently was consensual sex, she having been a virgin, the man had to marry her, and never divorce her. Why? because she was a virgin before the affair.

When Jesus referred to the clause "saving for the cause of fornication" in Matt. 5:31-32, he was giving the "traditions" of the Rabbis, "It hath been said", v. 31, and then gave what the Mosaic Law actually taught... the putting away for the cause of fornication, verse 32. This was what the Law allowed, and if they divorced for other causes... well it was a no-no! Matt. 4:17 says "Jesus began to preach, and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". That "repentance" had to do with returning to the Law of Moses. The Sermon on the Mount, Matt. chapters 5 through 7, is a sample of his "repentance" sermons. Matt. 5:17-19 shows he was teaching the Law of Moses. In Matt. 7:28-29 the people were astonished at his doctrine, "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." The scribes were referring to the Rabbis, "Rabbi so-and-so says this, Rabbi so-and-so says that, Hence the Talmuds of later years, but Jesus gave the Law in its actual meaning.

The exception clause comes up again in Matt. 19:3-9. This also had to do with the Law of Moses, the law the Jews were under at the time. They asked him, "is it lawful for a man to put away (divorce) his wife for every cause?" What the school of Hillel taught. Jesus quotes the book of Genesis 1:27; 2:24. And alludes to the fact of one man, one woman, for life. "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."- Matt. 19:4-6. The Jews ask him then about Moses mentioning the bill of divorcement. Verse 7. In verse 8 Jesus relates how Moses "suffered" , (not commanded) them to put away their wives, because of the hardness of their hearts,but from the beginning it was not so.In the beginning there was one man for one woman for life. Adam and Eve. No other individuals to commit fornication with! Then he gives what is found in Deut. 24:1, the bride being discovered not a virgin, having committed fornication. He gave this according to their Law.

This exception, fornication, was for the Mosaic dispensation. There is not to be divorce in the Christian dispensation. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus speaking to his disciples privately, there is no exception clause for fornication. One divorces his spouse and marries another commits adultery. Also Rom 7:2-3, "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress". Again, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, "Let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away (divorce) his wife.

It appears that Jesus for the church age, restored the original marriage law... One man for one woman for life. It was because of the hardness of the Jews hearts that Moses suffered the Jews to put away their wife, if she deceived him into thinking she was a virgin before their marriage. The Christians are not to have hard hearts. Heb. 3:15. The Christian is to "flee fornication", 1 Cor. 7:2; 1 Cor. 6:18. In considering 1 Cor. 10:13 God has made a way to escape temptation. Marriage is the way to avoid, flee the temptation of fornication. Yet one would harden his heart and divorce his spouse, and deprive them of this route of escape from fornication!!!


First of all, on Deu 24:1, the Hebrew term ערות [ORUT] cannot be considered in the same way as an act of adultery, because if it were so the penalty for that woman wasn’t a mere repudiation, but death.

Secondly, ערות [ORUT] wasn’t so a catch-all term so that each Hebrew husband was qualified to repudiate his wife – more or less - “for every cause” (Mat 19:3), like the pharisaic people mentioned by Abu Munir ibn Ibrahim.

Collating together the passages of Gen 42:9, 12; Deu 23:14-15; 24:1 we have to conclude that the primary meaning of ערות [ORUT] was “something uncovered, exposed, although it should have remain covered (it could be uncovered only at discretion of the ‘owner’ of the ‘ens’ at issue. He – the ‘owner’ – did can decide to ‘discover’ it according his chosen times, and/or occasion).

If you apply this definition to all the above mentioned passages you will see how it is appropriate.

In Gen 42:9, 12 ערות [ORUT] defined the weak points of the Egypt political’s or resources management (still now, each nations of the world try to cover these awkward factors…).

In Deu 23:14-15 ערות [ORUT] defined the exposed condition of some human excrements inside a military camp, a shameful thing, from the God’s viewpoint.

So, in Deu 24:1 ערות [ORUT] defined not an adultery act, but, with high probability, a wife attitude towards what probably prophet Isaiah described in the third chapter of his book. There was described the attitude of some (probably married, see 3:25) women of Israel (3:16-23), mentioning over 20 kinds of female trinkets:

And Jehovah says, Because the daughters of Zion are proud, and walk with stretched out necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and make a tinkling with their feet; so Jehovah will make the crown of the daughter of Zion scabby; and Jehovah will lay their secret parts bare. In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of the ankle bracelets, and the headbands, and the crescents, the pendants, and the bracelets, and the veils; the turbans, and the leg ornaments, and the sashes, and the houses of the soul, and the amulets; the rings and nose jewels; the festal apparel and the outer garments; and the mantles, and the purses; the mirrors and the fine linen; and the turbans and the veils.” (Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, by J. P. Green)

Giving a look at the expressions, “with […] wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go…”, we may imagine that those women coquetted towards men, winkling (משׂקרות [MT]/νευμασιν οφθαλμων [LXX]) with their eyes.

Moreover, among other gadget listed there, Isaiah mentioned also the סדינים (3:23). Even if these articles of clothing were not di per sé indecent (see Pro 31:24), the way to dress them made the difference between a decent/indecent article of clothing. Evidently, those women wanted to catch the attention of men (sorry, not their husbands!) in an indecent way. In fact, the Septuagint translate this term with the expression τα διαφανη, that is “the see-through (clothes)”.

So, Was Isaiah illustrating with practical examples what (in Deu 24:1) the term ערות [ORUT] includes? Maybe. In every case, ערות [ORUT] (in Deu 24:1) was an indecent attitude of a married woman, uncovering, or exposing some private parts of her body, for an example, dressing herself with figure-hugging and/or see-through clothes, or, worse than these, directly uncovering some private parts of her body, to be seen by other men.


I am certainly not as well informed as the posters above who answered your question but I have a special interest in the subject of Divorce and Remarriage myself. In my search to understand Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 I've come to the realization that Jesus in fact, taught "Marriage until death" and not an exception for divorce and remarriage. I base my conclusion on the Law of the day, Deuteronomy 22:13-30. If a woman would have been found guilty of either fornication divorce or any form of harlotry, she would certainly have been put to death by stoning along with whomever or whatever participated in the act. Only then would the man be free to remarry. Such a teaching would have been inconsistent with the other teachings of Jesus.

That being said, I came across some information contained in the Babylonian Talmud, concerning the meaning in Deuteronomy 24:1. It seems 3 Rabbis had a discussion about it and drew 3 different conclusions.




"GEMARA. It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Does not the text distinctly say 'thing'?7 Beth Shammai rejoined: And does it not distinctly say 'unseemliness'? Beth Hillel replied: Had it said only 'unseemliness' without 'thing', I should have concluded that she should be sent away on account of unseemliness, but not of any [lesser] 'thing'. Therefore 'thing' is specified. Again, had it said only 'thing' without 'unseemliness', I should have concluded that [if divorced] on account of a 'thing' she should be permitted to marry again, but if on account of 'unseemliness', she should not be permitted to remarry. Therefore 'unseemliness' is also specified. And what do Beth Shammai make of this word 'thing'?8 — [They use it for the following lesson.] It says here 'thing', and it says in another place 'thing', viz. in the text, 'By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses a thing shall be established':9 just as there two witnesses are required, so here two witnesses are required. And Beth Hillel? — [They can retort:] Is it written 'unseemliness in a thing'? And Beth Shammai? — Is it written, 'either unseemliness or a thing'? And Beth Hillel? — For this reason it is written 'unseemliness of a thing', which can be taken either way.10"

"R. AKIBA SAYS, EVEN IF HE FOUND ANOTHER. What is the ground of the difference here [between the various rulings]? — It is indicated in the dictum of Resh Lakish, who said that ki11 has four meanings — 'if', 'perhaps', 'but', 'because'. Beth Shammai held that we translate here: 'It cometh to pass that she find no favour In his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her,' while R. Akiba held that we translate, 'Or if again he hath found some unseemly thing in her'.12 R. Papa asked Raba: If he has found in her neither unseemliness nor any [lesser] thing, [and still divorces her], what are we to do [according to Beth Hillel]? — He replied: Since in the case of a man who has committed a rape the All-Merciful has specifically laid down that 'he may not put her away all his days',13 which implies that [if he does so] all his days he is under obligation to take her back, in that case only has the All-Merciful made this the rule, but here, what is done is done.14 R. Mesharsheya said to Raba: If a man has made up his mind to divorce his wife, but she still lives with him and waits on him, what are we to do with him? — [He replied:] We apply to him the verse, Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee.15"

"It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the street with her armpits uncovered and bathe with the men. Bathe with the men, you say? — It should be, bathe in the same place as the men. Such a one it is a religious duty to divorce, as it says, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her … and he sendeth her out of his house and she goeth and becometh another man's wife.1 The text calls him 'another', implying that he is not the fellow of the first; the one expelled a bad woman from his house, and the other took a bad woman into his house. If the second is lucky,2 he will also send her away, as it says, and the latter husband hateth her,3 and if not she will bury him, as it says, or if the latter husband die;4 he deserves to die since the one expelled a wicked woman from his house and the other took her into his house."

"For a hateful one put away:5 R. Judah said: [This means that] if you hate her you should put her away. R. Johanan says: It means, He that sends his wife away is hated. There is really no conflict between the two, since the one speaks of the first marriage and the other of the second, as R. Eleazar said: If a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears, as it says,6 And this further ye do, ye cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion and the wife of thy covenant.7"

I think the clue to understanding is contained in Deuteronomy 24:3 "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;"

This discusses more generally that he is simply displeased with her and that she hasn't done anything specific to assign a particular thing to the word "uncleanness", certainly not a sexual sin.

The same word "sane' (saw-nay')" is used in 2 Samuel 13:15, in describing David's son Ammon's hatred toward his virgin sister Tamar, after raping her. If this is in relation to sexual sin, then it would be wrongly directed toward her since she begged him not to do it. She was a virgin and without sexual sin. The sin would be his. If vs. 1 is viewed in the light of vs 3, then it seems that sexual immorality wouldn't be the intent of "some uncleanness" but the reason might be found in the discussion of the Rabbi's.


Also to be considered perhaps is the difference between "divorce" which actually means "to dismiss" or "send away", which is the same term used when Jesus "dismissed the crowd" after preaching to them from a boat near the shore of The Sea of Galilee. (It would sound funny these passages read "Jesus divorced the crowd".) Many men had been dismissing their wives without properly writing them a CERTIFICATE of DIVORCEMENT as required in Deuteronomy 24:1 .. this put women who had been "put away" or "dismissed" without a CERTIFICATE in a bad predicament, not having an official release statement from their husbands. Such women would have been committing adultery if remarrying without this certificate, which officially ended the marriage. Think "GET" as in Jewish tradition and how important a GET is to the wife being put away. (!)

Furthermore, Jesus, did expound on the Law, extending definitions of sin, to include conditions of the heart. Example: Matthew 5:21-22a “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."

Nevertheless, Jesus while he clarified sinful heart conditions, he did not contradict the Law of Moses, for if had he contradicted the Torah, he would certainly not have been recognized as the Messiah. He was without sin and Sin is defined transgression of the Torah (Law) I John 3:4

Thus I propose that Deuteronomy 24 :1 stands today and another look at Jesus's replies on marriage and divorce ought to be looked at in the context of "dismiss" or "put away" in place of the English "divorce" and emphasis added on Certificate of Divorce (a different word in Greek:apostasiou or ἀποστασίου ) which is the real requirement for divorce. A mere "dismissing" (unfortunately translated "divorce") of a spouse without the proper requirement of giving that spouse their rightful CERTIFICATE, was in and of itself a sin, and continuing onto another marriage without the CERTIFICATE was yet another sin (Adultery). Lastly, Deuteronomy 24:1 allows both divorce and remarriage, and based on other posters above, "Uncleaness" is also extended to "inappropriate behavior" which would make one spiritually unclean.



I believe that that the only grounds for divorce according to moses and jesus is fornication , if a man marries a woman under the impression she is a virgin, and finds out after he has married her that she is not a virgin that means she is guilty of fornication therefore she is unclean and a man may divorce this woman since he has married an unclean woman unknowingly. The kjv does not say jesus said the only grounds for divorce is sexual immorality, its says fornication, many say that jesus said sexual immorality and that he means an adulterous act. Jesus would have said adulterer, but he said fornication and a married woman cannot commit fornication, because she is married it would be adultery. A single woman can commit fornication and then marry a man, the man can then find out on the wedding nightt that she is not a virgin and therefore unclean and guilty of fornication. And he can now divorce her.

  • 2
    Hello and welcome to the site. Can you please edit this to explain more why you think the way you do? Do you have any evidence from the Hebrew or Greek words in these verses? Focusing on the English meaning of the English word "fornicate" will not really help us understand the Bible if the Hebrew or Greek mean different things. And seeing as many translations don't translate verses like these with "fornicate", that would seem likely...
    – curiousdannii
    Jul 31, 2019 at 7:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.