Deuteronomy 24:1
If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Open Deuteronomy 24:1 in the Motif Searcher, word by word across all five texts →Show on the spiral →The verse in its languages
- Vulgate (Clementine)
- Si acceperit homo uxorem, et habuerit eam, et non invenerit gratiam ante oculos ejus propter aliquam fœditatem : scribet libellum repudii, et dabit in manu illius, et dimittet eam de domo sua.
- Septuagint (Swete)
- Ἐὰν δὲ τις λάβῃ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσῃ αὐτῇ, καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εὕρῃ χάριν ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ ὅτι εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα, καὶ γράψει αὐτῇ βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ δώσει εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐξαποστελεῖ αὐτὴν ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ·
- Hebrew (WLC)
- כִּֽי יִקַּ֥ח אִ֛ישׁ אִשָּׁ֖ה וּבְעָלָ֑הּ וְהָיָ֞ה אִם לֹ֧א תִמְצָא חֵ֣ן בְּעֵינָ֗יו כִּי מָ֤צָא בָהּ֙ עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙ וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּיתֽוֹ
Haydock's commentary
Uncleanness. Tertullian (contra Marc. iv.) reads, "if she be found guilty of any impurity," negotium impudicum. Septuagint, "unseemly action;" and many learned commentators suppose that Moses only allows a divorce in cases of adultery, or in those which render the woman dangerous to a family, as if she had the leprosy, or some other infectious disorder, or was likely to corrupt the morals of her children, or if she were barren. The Pharisees were divided among themselves in determining the sense of this law, (Calmet) and they endeavoured to inveigle our Saviour, by proposing the question to him. If it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, quacumque ex causa, or for any reason whatsoever, Matthew xix. 3. (Haydock)
Our Lord does not take notice of the limitation here added by Moses; (Matthew v. 31.) nor do the Pharisees, when he asks them, What did Moses command you? (Mark x. 3.) Whence it seems, that the liberty which was taken was very great, and that the limitation was not regarded. Our Saviour, nonetheless, alludes to it, when he admits that Moses permitted a divorce, in case of adultery. But he recalls them to the institution of marriage, and will no longer allow people to marry again, even in this case, as Moses had been forced to permit the Jews, on account of the hardness of their heart. (Calmet)
Before this permission, the Jews were therefore, it seems, much addicted to this practice.
Bill. The law does not command divorces; but in case the parties come to such a determination, it requires a bill to be given to the woman. The Jews require the greatest formality in drawing it up, and witnessing it, and they say the divorce must take place upon a fountain or river. (Schikard. Jur. iii. 9.)
Read on
Munster gives this form of a bill: "The 4th day of the month of Sivan, of the year 5293 from the creation of the world, in this place and in this city of N, T.[I,?] N, son of N, had a mind to divorce, and has divorced N, daughter of N, who hitherto has been my wife; and I grant her leave to go whither she has a mind, and to marry whomsoever she pleases, so that no one shall hinder her. In witness whereof, I have given her this bill of divorce, according to the ordinances of Moses and of Israel." The Jews still assert their right to put away their wives. (Buxt. Syn. xxix.) (Calmet)
But it is sinful for them, or for any other, to marry the woman divorced, till the first husband be dead. If they do, they are guilty of adultery, as our Saviour and St. Paul repeatedly inculcate. (St. Augustine, de Adult. Conj. i. 11.) (Worthington)
Where a note speaks of the Jewish people, the Church teaches that the Passion cannot be charged against all the Jews then living, nor against the Jews of today, and that all sinners were its authors (CCC 597, 598).
From Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859, in the transcription made by Todd Easton and kept online by John Paul Wohlschied at johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock.
The Fathers on this verse
Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion, Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It, Explained. John Baptist and Herod. Marcion's Attempt to Discover an Antithesis in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades Confuted. The Creator's Appointment Manifested in Both States
But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.” In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.” You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel, between Moses and Christ? To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. …
Origen Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Chapter XVIII
After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus, “ Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away? ” And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: “But if a man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly,” etc., down to the words, “and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.” Now I inquire whether in these things according to this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away,” it was of necessity said, “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suf …
Origen Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Chapter XXIV
But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress,” He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, “Because he found in her an unseemly thing,” is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. …
St Augustine On the Good of Marriage, Section 7
7. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; whereas surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. But perhaps she may justly be reconciled to her husband, either he being to be borne with, if she cannot contain herself, or being now corrected. …
St Augustine Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, Faustus is willing to admit that Christ may have said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them; but if He did, it was to pacify the Jews and in a modified sense. Augustin replies, and still further elaborates the Catholic view of prophecy and its fulfillment
26. Again, we shall find on examination, that there is no opposition between the precept of the Lord about not putting away a wife, and what was said by them of old time: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." The Lord explains the intention of the law, which required a bill of divorce in every case where a wife was put away. The precept not to put away a wife is the opposite of saying that a man may put away his wife if he pleases; which is not what the law says. …
St John Chrysostom The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Matthew V. 27, 28
He goes not on to what lies before Him, until He have well cleared out the former topics. For, lo, He shows us yet another kind of adultery. And what is this? There was an ancient law made,that he who hated his wife, for whatever kind of cause, should not be forbidden to cast her out, and to bring home another instead of her. The law however did not command him simply to do this, but after giving the woman a writing of divorcement, that it might not be in her power to return to him again; that so at least the figure of the marriage might remain.
St Jerome The Letters of St. Jerome, To Amandus
4. I have not been able quite to determine what it is that she means by the words “has found herself compelled” to marry again. What is this compulsion of which she speaks? Was she overborne by a crowd and ravished against her will? If so, why has she not, thus victimized, subsequently put away her ravisher? Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws. …
The Fathers are given as they wrote. Where a passage lays the Passion on the Jewish people, the Church teaches that it cannot be charged against all the Jews then living, nor against the Jews of today, and that all sinners were its authors (CCC 597, 598).