Question re: Adultery/Criminal justice...
- Thread starter 2MuchCoffeeMan
- Start date
- Status
2MuchCoffeeMan
New member
So, under a biblical justice system: what, if any, circumstances would/could/should a divorce be granted?
Lovejoy
Active member
I have wondered about this myself, especially since the adultery clause only appears in Matthew. My perception (limited as it is) is that adultery does not have to be the act of sex with another. Obviously, Christ was setting a new standard for marriage, and one under His convenant, and in that standard willful lust alone was enough to be considered unfaithful. If the withholding of sex from your husband or wife is secondary to a sexual obsession with another (or even with pornography), than that is grounds for divorce. How often are we capable of getting the person that we lust after? The lust is enough to constitute betrayal.
2MuchCoffeeMan
New member
Okay, gonna give it one more shot before I give up...
Deuteronomy 24:1 - 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.
Okay, obviously divorce was allowed for even in Israel, under the Mosaic law. Apparently needing have nothing to do with adultery, unless "because he hath found some uncleanness in her" refers to something other than being fed up with your spouse.
Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And here Christ equates extra-marital lust with adultery. Of course, that's not something you can very well legislate against so it has little impact on criminal law.
Matthew 5:31 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Here's the difficulty for me. Does Christ mean adultery in the criminal sense or is this more a Matthew 5:28 "adultery...in his heart"?
On one hand - He said both these things as part of the Sermon on the Mount, so it could be argued that He was simply clarifying the principles involved. Also, Israel, while under biblical law, allowed for divorce for seemingly little reason at all.
On the other - I would find it difficult to imagine any society with a biblical law reading this and not equating divorce with adultery, a capitol offense.
On the third hand - Irregardless, Christ provides fornication as reasonable grounds for divorce. And yet, if I understand the concept of fornication correctly...isn't that adultery in the context of marriage? After all how can you commit fornication with someone you are married to? And how can you, if married, fornicate without committing adultery?
Deuteronomy 24:1 - 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.
Okay, obviously divorce was allowed for even in Israel, under the Mosaic law. Apparently needing have nothing to do with adultery, unless "because he hath found some uncleanness in her" refers to something other than being fed up with your spouse.
Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And here Christ equates extra-marital lust with adultery. Of course, that's not something you can very well legislate against so it has little impact on criminal law.
Matthew 5:31 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Matthew 5:32 - But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Here's the difficulty for me. Does Christ mean adultery in the criminal sense or is this more a Matthew 5:28 "adultery...in his heart"?
On one hand - He said both these things as part of the Sermon on the Mount, so it could be argued that He was simply clarifying the principles involved. Also, Israel, while under biblical law, allowed for divorce for seemingly little reason at all.
On the other - I would find it difficult to imagine any society with a biblical law reading this and not equating divorce with adultery, a capitol offense.
On the third hand - Irregardless, Christ provides fornication as reasonable grounds for divorce. And yet, if I understand the concept of fornication correctly...isn't that adultery in the context of marriage? After all how can you commit fornication with someone you are married to? And how can you, if married, fornicate without committing adultery?
Aimiel
Well-known member
Because God looks upon the heart, and Jesus spoke of men committing adultery in their hearts, I have to agree with you. I also believe that if Christians would take this lesson to heart (pun intended) that they would be such a purifying influence upon the world that we would live on a planet which is much less focused upon sexual and juvenile undertones. I think I see a sermon in here, I'd better put this in my notes.
Actually, Aimiel and Lovejoy, I think it would be more accurate to state that Jesus did not raise or change the standard, he clarified what the standard of righteousness was all along. Before Christ's time was it any less sinful to lust after someone, or to be angry at someone without cause?
I submit that the God's holy and righteous nature does not change. He is the standard.
I submit that the God's holy and righteous nature does not change. He is the standard.
2MuchCoffeeMan
New member
So, had we a bible-based system of justice in effect today...what, if any, grounds would be considered reasonable to grant a divorce? And would you agree that adultery would be a capitol crime?
Aimiel
Well-known member
The difference between what man sets up and God's Kingdom, which is not of this world (yet) will always be the flaws inherrent in fallen men. If everyone on this earth were restored (which is what takes place when one becomes a believer in Jesus) then God would be able to establish His Kingdom over men, for they would all submit to Him. He is not looking for ways to conquer, but waiting, patiently, for men to look to the cross and become converted.
Divorce occurs on a whim today, and often there is adultery, but it is because of the fallen nature of people. If the death penalty were in force for adultery, there would be a different paradigm on this earth, and, I believe, a whole lot less disease.
Divorce occurs on a whim today, and often there is adultery, but it is because of the fallen nature of people. If the death penalty were in force for adultery, there would be a different paradigm on this earth, and, I believe, a whole lot less disease.
What are you missing here? You are missing the Biblical principle of victims rights. The victim of a crime is the one who decides whether the allowed penalty will be enforced or not. The death penalty for adultery, for example, would not be automatic.
When the State is the prosecuting agent of Biblical laws that have been violated where a pleonasm is in the verse (eg. "dying he shall surely die"), the State is required to enforce the death penalty upon conviction with no judicial discretion in imposing sanctions. There is a reason why some penalties have pleonasms in the verse and others do not. The differences in the verses exist to point out differences in the surety of punishments for different crimes.
When the victim is the prosecuting agent, victims rights prevail. For example, the Bible commands the death penalty for adultery. However, an innocent husband in a particular case may decide that his preschool children need their mother (slut though she may be) much more than he needs justice. The father's decision to allow the slut to live would stand.
A specific example from the Bible is Joseph's refusal to prosecute Mary when he found out she was pregnant before they were married. The Bible calls Joseph a "just" man. (Matthew 1:19 - "But Joseph, her husband to be, being JUST, and not willing to make her a public example, he purposed to put her away secretly.")
How could the Bible possibly call Joseph "just" in the very same verse where he sinned against a Biblical command that calls for the execution of an adulteress?
The answer is that Joseph had the Biblical freedom to forgive Mary and spare her any punishment since Joseph himself was the victim.
2MuchCoffeeMan
New member
Wow. Good point. Thanks, Jefferson.:thumb:
- Status