Holiness, Exclusion, and the Purity of the Covenant Assembly

Deu 23:3-8 Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth generation; not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest (Gen 19:30.) , as Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had manifested to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed to give Israel a hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deu 2:29), but they (viz.

, the king of the Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In this way they had brought upon themselves the curse which falls upon all those who curse Israel, according to the infallible word of God (Gen 12:3), the truth of which even Balaam was obliged to attest in the presence of Balak (Num 24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing (cf.

Num 22-24). For this reason Israel was never to seek their welfare and prosperity, i. e. , to make this an object of its care (“to seek,” as in Jer 29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of repaying evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition, nor instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established congregation in Jerusalem (Ezr 9:12).

How far Moses was from being influenced by such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from the prohibition in Deu 2:9 and Deu 2:19 against making war upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from the command which follows in Deu 23:8 and Deu 23:9 with reference to the Edomites and Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the Israelites.

Edom had come against them when they desired to march peaceably through his land (Num 20:18.) , and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed them. Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”), and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their sojourn in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation, i.

e. , the great-grandchildren of Edomites of Egyptians, who had lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exo 20:5). Such persons might be incorporated into the covenant nation by circumcision. Preservation of the Purity of the Camp in Time of War. - The bodily appearance of the people was also to correspond to the sacredness of Israel as the congregation of the Lord, especially when they gathered in hosts around their God.

“ When thou marchest out as a camp against thine enemies, beware of every evil thing . ” What is meant by an “evil thing” is stated in Deu 23:10-13, viz. , uncleanness, and uncleanliness of the body.

Deu 23:3-8 Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth generation; not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest (Gen 19:30.) , as Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had manifested to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed to give Israel a hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deu 2:29), but they (viz.

, the king of the Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In this way they had brought upon themselves the curse which falls upon all those who curse Israel, according to the infallible word of God (Gen 12:3), the truth of which even Balaam was obliged to attest in the presence of Balak (Num 24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing (cf.

Num 22-24). For this reason Israel was never to seek their welfare and prosperity, i. e. , to make this an object of its care (“to seek,” as in Jer 29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of repaying evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition, nor instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established congregation in Jerusalem (Ezr 9:12).

How far Moses was from being influenced by such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from the prohibition in Deu 2:9 and Deu 2:19 against making war upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from the command which follows in Deu 23:8 and Deu 23:9 with reference to the Edomites and Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the Israelites.

Edom had come against them when they desired to march peaceably through his land (Num 20:18.) , and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed them. Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”), and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their sojourn in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation, i.

e. , the great-grandchildren of Edomites of Egyptians, who had lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exo 20:5). Such persons might be incorporated into the covenant nation by circumcision. Preservation of the Purity of the Camp in Time of War. - The bodily appearance of the people was also to correspond to the sacredness of Israel as the congregation of the Lord, especially when they gathered in hosts around their God.

“ When thou marchest out as a camp against thine enemies, beware of every evil thing . ” What is meant by an “evil thing” is stated in Deu 23:10-13, viz. , uncleanness, and uncleanliness of the body.

Deu 23:3-8 Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth generation; not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest (Gen 19:30.) , as Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had manifested to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed to give Israel a hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deu 2:29), but they (viz.

, the king of the Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In this way they had brought upon themselves the curse which falls upon all those who curse Israel, according to the infallible word of God (Gen 12:3), the truth of which even Balaam was obliged to attest in the presence of Balak (Num 24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing (cf.

Num 22-24). For this reason Israel was never to seek their welfare and prosperity, i. e. , to make this an object of its care (“to seek,” as in Jer 29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of repaying evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition, nor instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established congregation in Jerusalem (Ezr 9:12).

How far Moses was from being influenced by such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from the prohibition in Deu 2:9 and Deu 2:19 against making war upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from the command which follows in Deu 23:8 and Deu 23:9 with reference to the Edomites and Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the Israelites.

Edom had come against them when they desired to march peaceably through his land (Num 20:18.) , and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed them. Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”), and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their sojourn in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation, i.

e. , the great-grandchildren of Edomites of Egyptians, who had lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exo 20:5). Such persons might be incorporated into the covenant nation by circumcision. Preservation of the Purity of the Camp in Time of War. - The bodily appearance of the people was also to correspond to the sacredness of Israel as the congregation of the Lord, especially when they gathered in hosts around their God.

“ When thou marchest out as a camp against thine enemies, beware of every evil thing . ” What is meant by an “evil thing” is stated in Deu 23:10-13, viz. , uncleanness, and uncleanliness of the body.

Deu 23:10-11 The person who had become unclean through a nightly occurrence, was to go out of the camp and remain there till he had cleansed himself in the evening. On the journey through the desert, none but those who were affected with uncleanness of a longer duration were to be removed from the camp (Num 5:2) but when they were encamped, this law was to apply to even lighter defilements.

Deu 23:10-11 The person who had become unclean through a nightly occurrence, was to go out of the camp and remain there till he had cleansed himself in the evening. On the journey through the desert, none but those who were affected with uncleanness of a longer duration were to be removed from the camp (Num 5:2) but when they were encamped, this law was to apply to even lighter defilements.

Deu 23:12-13 The camp of war was also not to be defiled with the dirt of excrements. Outside the camp there was to be a space or place (יד, as in Num 2:17) for the necessities of nature, and among their implements they were to have a spade, with which they were to dig when they sat down, and then cover it up again. יתד, generally a plug, here a tool for sticking in, i.e., for digging into the ground.

Deu 23:12-13 The camp of war was also not to be defiled with the dirt of excrements. Outside the camp there was to be a space or place (יד, as in Num 2:17) for the necessities of nature, and among their implements they were to have a spade, with which they were to dig when they sat down, and then cover it up again. יתד, generally a plug, here a tool for sticking in, i.e., for digging into the ground.

Deu 23:14 For the camp was to be (to be kept) holy, because Jehovah walked in the midst of it, in order that He might not see “ nakedness of a thing ,” i.e., anything to be ashamed of (see at Deu 24:1) in the people, “ and turn away from thee .” There was nothing shameful in the excrement itself; but the want of reverence, which the people would display through not removing it, would offend the Lord and drive Him out of the camp of Israel.

Deu 23:15-16 Toleration and Non-Toleration in the Congregation of the Lord. - Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16. A slave who had escaped from his master to Israel was not to be given up, but to be allowed to dwell in the land, wherever he might choose, and not to be oppressed. The reference is to a slave who had fled to them from a foreign country, on account of the harsh treatment which he had received from his heathen master. The plural `adoniym denotes the rule.

Deu 23:15-16 Toleration and Non-Toleration in the Congregation of the Lord. - Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16. A slave who had escaped from his master to Israel was not to be given up, but to be allowed to dwell in the land, wherever he might choose, and not to be oppressed. The reference is to a slave who had fled to them from a foreign country, on account of the harsh treatment which he had received from his heathen master. The plural `adoniym denotes the rule.

Deu 23:17-18 On the other hand, male and female prostitutes of Israelitish descent were not to be tolerated; i. e. , it was not to be allowed, that either a male or female among the Israelites should give himself up to prostitution as an act of religious worship. The exclusion of foreign prostitutes was involved in the command to root out the Canaanites. קדּשׁ and קדשׁה were persons who prostituted themselves in the worship of the Canaanitish Astarte (see at Gen 38:21).

- “ The wages of a prostitute and the money of dogs shall not come into the house of the Lord on account of (ל, for the more remote cause, Ewald , §217) any vow; for even both these (viz. , even the prostitute and dog, not merely their dishonourable gains) are abomination unto the Lord thy God . ” “The hire of a whore” is what the kedeshah was paid for giving herself up.

“The price of a dog” is not the price paid for the sale of a dog ( Bochart, Spencer, Iken, Baumgarten, etc.) , but is a figurative expression used to denote the gains of the kadesh , who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and received his name from the dog-like manner in which the male kadesh debased himself (see Rev 22:15, where the unclean are distinctly called “dogs”).

Deu 23:17-18 On the other hand, male and female prostitutes of Israelitish descent were not to be tolerated; i. e. , it was not to be allowed, that either a male or female among the Israelites should give himself up to prostitution as an act of religious worship. The exclusion of foreign prostitutes was involved in the command to root out the Canaanites. קדּשׁ and קדשׁה were persons who prostituted themselves in the worship of the Canaanitish Astarte (see at Gen 38:21).

- “ The wages of a prostitute and the money of dogs shall not come into the house of the Lord on account of (ל, for the more remote cause, Ewald , §217) any vow; for even both these (viz. , even the prostitute and dog, not merely their dishonourable gains) are abomination unto the Lord thy God . ” “The hire of a whore” is what the kedeshah was paid for giving herself up.

“The price of a dog” is not the price paid for the sale of a dog ( Bochart, Spencer, Iken, Baumgarten, etc.) , but is a figurative expression used to denote the gains of the kadesh , who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and received his name from the dog-like manner in which the male kadesh debased himself (see Rev 22:15, where the unclean are distinctly called “dogs”).

Deu 23:19-20 Different Theocratic Rights of Citizenship. - Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20. Of his brother (i.e., his countryman), the Israelite was not to take interest for money, food, or anything else that he lent to him; but only of strangers (non-Israelites: cf. Exo 22:24 and Lev 25:36-37).

Deu 23:19-20 Different Theocratic Rights of Citizenship. - Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20. Of his brother (i.e., his countryman), the Israelite was not to take interest for money, food, or anything else that he lent to him; but only of strangers (non-Israelites: cf. Exo 22:24 and Lev 25:36-37).

Deu 23:21-23 Vows vowed to the Lord were to be fulfilled without delay; but omitting to vow was not a sin. (On vows themselves, see at Lev and Num 30:2.) נדבה is an accusative defining the meaning more fully: in free will, spontaneously.

Deu 23:21-23 Vows vowed to the Lord were to be fulfilled without delay; but omitting to vow was not a sin. (On vows themselves, see at Lev and Num 30:2.) נדבה is an accusative defining the meaning more fully: in free will, spontaneously.

Deu 23:21-23 Vows vowed to the Lord were to be fulfilled without delay; but omitting to vow was not a sin. (On vows themselves, see at Lev and Num 30:2.) נדבה is an accusative defining the meaning more fully: in free will, spontaneously.

Deu 23:24-25 In the vineyard and cornfield of a neighbour they might eat at pleasure to still their hunger, but they were not to put anything into a vessel, or swing a sickle upon another’s corn, that is to say, carry away any store of grapes or ears of corn. כּנפשׁך, according to thy desire, or appetite (cf. Deu 14:26). “ Pluck the ears: ” cf. Mat 12:1; Luk 6:1.

- The right of hungry persons, when passing through a field, to pluck ears of corn, and rub out the grains and eat, is still recognised among the Arabs (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. 192).

Deu 23:24-25 In the vineyard and cornfield of a neighbour they might eat at pleasure to still their hunger, but they were not to put anything into a vessel, or swing a sickle upon another’s corn, that is to say, carry away any store of grapes or ears of corn. כּנפשׁך, according to thy desire, or appetite (cf. Deu 14:26). “ Pluck the ears: ” cf. Mat 12:1; Luk 6:1.

- The right of hungry persons, when passing through a field, to pluck ears of corn, and rub out the grains and eat, is still recognised among the Arabs (vid. , Rob. Pal. ii. 192).

Deu 24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deu 24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died.

The four verses form a period, in which Deu 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deu 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again.

The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “ if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i. e. , does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful ” (Deu 23:15).

ערוה, nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isa 20:4; 1Sa 20:30); in connection with דּבר, the shame of a thing, i. e. , a shameful thing (lxx ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα; Vulg . aliquam faetiditatem ). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Mat 19:3, “for every cause.

” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos , פתגם עבירת, the transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה, to which the interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of דּבר ערות is “ rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam . ” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.

כּריתת ספר, βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, a letter of divorce; כּריתת, hewing off, cutting off, sc. , from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Gen 2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life. The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces.

Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people’s hearts” (Mat 19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce.

But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman was defiled (הטּמּאה, Hothpael , as in Num 1:47) by her marriage with a second husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.

e. , blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Lev 18:20 and Num 5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Mat 5:32).

- But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another ( Schultz ), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.

e. , stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Lev 18:25). Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deu 24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “ and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter .

” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “ Free shall he be for his house for a year ,” i. e. , they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deu 20:7).

Deu 24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deu 24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died.

The four verses form a period, in which Deu 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deu 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again.

The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “ if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i. e. , does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful ” (Deu 23:15).

ערוה, nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isa 20:4; 1Sa 20:30); in connection with דּבר, the shame of a thing, i. e. , a shameful thing (lxx ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα; Vulg . aliquam faetiditatem ). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Mat 19:3, “for every cause.

” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos , פתגם עבירת, the transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה, to which the interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of דּבר ערות is “ rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam . ” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.

כּריתת ספר, βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, a letter of divorce; כּריתת, hewing off, cutting off, sc. , from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Gen 2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life. The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces.

Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people’s hearts” (Mat 19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce.

But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman was defiled (הטּמּאה, Hothpael , as in Num 1:47) by her marriage with a second husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.

e. , blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Lev 18:20 and Num 5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Mat 5:32).

- But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another ( Schultz ), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.

e. , stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Lev 18:25). Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deu 24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “ and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter .

” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “ Free shall he be for his house for a year ,” i. e. , they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deu 20:7).

Deu 24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deu 24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died.

The four verses form a period, in which Deu 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deu 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again.

The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “ if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i. e. , does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful ” (Deu 23:15).

ערוה, nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isa 20:4; 1Sa 20:30); in connection with דּבר, the shame of a thing, i. e. , a shameful thing (lxx ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα; Vulg . aliquam faetiditatem ). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Mat 19:3, “for every cause.

” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos , פתגם עבירת, the transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה, to which the interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of דּבר ערות is “ rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam . ” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.

כּריתת ספר, βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, a letter of divorce; כּריתת, hewing off, cutting off, sc. , from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Gen 2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life. The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces.

Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people’s hearts” (Mat 19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce.

But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman was defiled (הטּמּאה, Hothpael , as in Num 1:47) by her marriage with a second husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.

e. , blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Lev 18:20 and Num 5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Mat 5:32).

- But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another ( Schultz ), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.

e. , stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Lev 18:25). Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deu 24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “ and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter .

” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “ Free shall he be for his house for a year ,” i. e. , they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deu 20:7).

Deu 24:1-5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (Deu 24:1-4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died.

The four verses form a period, in which Deu 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and Deu 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again.

The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition. This tradition left the question of divorce entirely at the will of the husband: “ if the wife does not find favour in his eyes (i. e. , does not please him), because he has found in her something shameful ” (Deu 23:15).

ערוה, nakedness, shame, disgrace (Isa 20:4; 1Sa 20:30); in connection with דּבר, the shame of a thing, i. e. , a shameful thing (lxx ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα; Vulg . aliquam faetiditatem ). The meaning of this expression as a ground of divorce was disputed even among the Rabbins. Hillel's school interpret it in the widest and most lax manner possible, according to the explanation of the Pharisees in Mat 19:3, “for every cause.

” They no doubt followed the rendering of Onkelos , פתגם עבירת, the transgression of a thing; but this is contrary to the use of the word ערוה, to which the interpretation given by Shammai adhered more strictly. His explanation of דּבר ערות is “ rem impudicam, libidinem, lasciviam, impudicitiam . ” Adultery, to which some of the Rabbins would restrict the expression, is certainly not to be thought of, because this was to be punished with death.

כּריתת ספר, βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, a letter of divorce; כּריתת, hewing off, cutting off, sc. , from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh (Gen 2:24). The custom of giving letters of divorce was probably adopted by the Israelites in Egypt, where the practice of writing had already found its way into all the relations of life. The law that the first husband could not take his divorced wife back again, if she had married another husband in the meantime, even supposing that the second husband was dead, would necessarily put a check upon frivolous divorces.

Moses could not entirely abolish the traditional custom, if only “because of the hardness of the people’s hearts” (Mat 19:8). The thought, therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wife had contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie: it would have this effect, that whilst, on the one hand, the man would reflect when inducements to divorce his wife presented themselves, and would recall a rash act if it had been performed, before the wife he had put away had married another husband; on the other hand, the wife would yield more readily to the will of her husband, and seek to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce.

But this effect would be still more readily produced by the reason assigned by Moses, namely, that the divorced woman was defiled (הטּמּאה, Hothpael , as in Num 1:47) by her marriage with a second husband. The second marriage of a woman who had been divorced is designated by Moses a defilement of the woman, primarily no doubt with reference to the fact that the emissio seminis in sexual intercourse rendered unclean, though not merely in the sense of such a defilement as was removed in the evening by simple washing, but as a moral defilement, i.

e. , blemishing, desecration of the sexual communion with was sanctified by marriage, in the same sense in which adultery is called a defilement in Lev 18:20 and Num 5:13-14. Thus the second marriage of a divorced woman was placed implicite upon a par with adultery, and some approach made towards the teaching of Christ concerning marriage: “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery” (Mat 5:32).

- But if the second marriage of a divorced woman was a moral defilement, of course the wife could not marry the first again even after the death of her second husband, not only because such a reunion would lower the dignity of the woman, and the woman would appear too much like property, which could be disposed of at one time and reclaimed at another ( Schultz ), but because the defilement of the wife would be thereby repeated, and even increased, as the moral defilement which the divorced wife acquired through the second marriage was not removed by a divorce from the second husband, nor yet by his death. Such defilement was an abomination before Jehovah, by which they would cause the land to sin, i.

e. , stain it with sin, as much as by the sins of incest and unnatural licentiousness (Lev 18:25). Attached to this law, which is intended to prevent a frivolous severance of the marriage tie, there is another in Deu 24:5, which was of a more positive character, and adapted to fortify the marriage bond. The newly married man was not required to perform military service for a whole year; “ and there shall not come (anything) upon him with regard to any matter .

” The meaning of this last clause is to be found in what follows: “ Free shall he be for his house for a year ,” i. e. , they shall put no public burdens upon him, that he may devote himself entirely to his newly established domestic relations, and be able to gladden his wife (compare Deu 20:7).