What is the context?
The case describes a man giving a certificate of divorce, the woman marrying another, and that second marriage ending by divorce or death. The explicit prohibition is against the first husband taking her back after the intervening marriage.
The passage does not command a husband to divorce whenever he is displeased. Its opening circumstances have nevertheless raised a major question about the meaning of indecency. A separate command then exempts a newly married man from war or imposed duty for a year so that he can bring joy to his wife.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Mishnah Gittin 9:10 records differing grounds for divorce: Shammai’s school connects the phrase with sexual misconduct, Hillel’s allows lesser displeasure, and Rabbi Akiva gives an even broader reading. These are reported interpretations, not three clauses found in Deuteronomy.
Christians also differ over divorce and remarriage in light of Jesus’ teaching. The Catholic Catechism 2382–2386 teaches the indissolubility of a ratified, consummated marriage between baptized people, while recognizing legitimate separation and some protective uses of civil divorce. The Westminster Confession 24.5–6 permits divorce and remarriage after adultery and recognizes irremediable willful desertion as a ground for dissolving marriage. Both appeal to Scripture, but their conclusions about the continuing bond differ.
Where does this fit in God's plan?
Matthew 19:3–12 directly discusses Moses’ divorce certificate. Jesus distinguishes permission because of hard hearts from the Creator’s purpose that husband and wife be one, and speaks about divorce, remarriage, and sexual immorality. This is an explicit New Testament reading of the law. The different Christian applications should be represented fairly rather than resolved by quietly inserting a new site position.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.