Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
Theonomy Wiki
You have no notifications.
Log in
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help
Donate
English
British English
Simple English
español
français
Deutsch
Kiswahili
हिन्दी
മലയാളം
Bahasa Indonesia
한국어
svenska
português
Ελληνικά
বাংলা
עברית
日本語
中文
فارسی
suomi
русский
українська
հայերեն
italiano
العربية
norsk bokmål
Nederlands
Türkçe
Tiếng Việt
íslenska
Tagalog
Classical Hebrew
Ἀρχαία ἑλληνικὴ
Export translations
From Theonomy Wiki
Settings
Group
1Chroniclesname
1Corinthiansname
1Johnname
1Kingsname
1Petername
1Samuelname
1Thessaloniansname
1Timothyname
2Chroniclesname
2Corinthiansname
2Johnname
2Kingsname
2Petername
2Samuelname
2Thessaloniansname
2Timothyname
3Johnname
Actsname
Addlawanalysisname
Alldocumentationname
AllDocumentationname/en
Amosname
AnsweredQuestionsname
Are there 613 commandments in the Torah?
Are there two (or three) different versions of the Ten Commandments?
AssociatedNotesname
AssociatedScripturesname
Associatedverses
Books and other resources
Booksname
Can a husband and wife have equal authority in a marriage?
Categoriesname
Category:1 Chronicles
Category:1 Corinthians
Category:1 John
Category:1 Kings
Category:1 Peter
Category:1 Samuel
Category:1 Thessalonians
Category:1 Timothy
Category:2 Chronicles
Category:2 Corinthians
Category:2 John
Category:2 Kings
Category:2 Peter
Category:2 Samuel
Category:2 Thessalonians
Category:2 Timothy
Category:3 John
Category:Abrahamic Covenant
Category:Acts
Category:Adoption
Category:Adultery
Category:Altars
Category:Amos
Category:Ancient Near East Legal Systems
Category:Answered Questions
Category:Anthropology
Category:Authority
Category:Autonomy
Category:Bestiality
Category:Boundaries
Category:Bridewealth (mohar)
Category:Capital Punishment
Category:Case law
Category:Ceremonial Cleanness
Category:Circumcision
Category:Citizenship
Category:Civil/Judicial Law
Category:Code of Hammurabi
Category:Colossians
Category:Confession
Category:Corporate Judgment
Category:Covenant
Category:Covenant of perpetual slavery
Category:Covetousness
Category:Created Order
Category:Creator-Creation Distinction
Category:Curses
Category:Cursing a parent
Category:Daniel
Category:David
Category:Davidic Covenant
Category:Defense
Category:Defense of others
Category:Defilement
Category:Destruction of Jerusalem
Category:Deuteronomy
Category:Differing treatment under the law
Category:Divining
Category:Divorce
Category:Documentation
Category:Dominion
Category:Ecclesiastes
Category:Ephesians
Category:Eschatology
Category:Esther
Category:Exodus
Category:Ezekiel
Category:Ezra
Category:False prophecy
Category:Family
Category:Family Regulations
Category:Feast
Category:Food
Category:Foreigners
Category:Funeral
Category:Galatians
Category:Genesis
Category:Government Structure
Category:Guilt
Category:Habakkuk
Category:Haggai
Category:Head of Household
Category:Hebrew Scriptures
Category:Hebrews
Category:Hermeneutics
Category:Holidays
Category:Holiness
Category:Homosexuality
Category:Hosea
Category:Hospitality
Category:Human Judicial Response
Category:Hybridization
Category:Idolatry
Category:Incest
Category:Inheritance
Category:Investigation
Category:Isaiah
Category:Israelite Kings
Category:Israelite Land Regulations
Category:James
Category:Jeremiah
Category:Job
Category:Joel
Category:John
Category:Jonah
Category:Joshua
Category:Jude
Category:Judge
Category:Judges
Category:Judicial Procedure
Category:Jurisdiction
Category:Kidnapping
Category:King
Category:Lamentations
Category:Law Function
Category:Law versus Covenant
Category:Legal evidence
Category:Legal Systems
Category:Levirate Marriage
Category:Levitical Priesthood
Category:Levitical Priesthood Regulations
Category:Leviticus
Category:Lies
Category:Loving God
Category:Loving one's neighbor
Category:Luke
Category:Lust
Category:Malachi
Category:Manumission
Category:Mark
Category:Marriage
Category:Matthew
Category:Mercy
Category:Micah
Category:Moral Law
Category:Mourning
Category:Murder
Category:Nahum
Category:Nakedness
Category:Name of God
Category:National Storehouse
Category:Negligent manslaughter
Category:Nehemiah
Category:New Covenant
Category:New Testament
Category:Noahic Covenant
Category:Numbers
Category:Oath
Category:Obadiah
Category:One-time Command
Category:Parents
Category:Philemon
Category:Philippians
Category:Plunder
Category:Polygamy
Category:Priesthood
Category:Principles and Definitions
Category:Prison
Category:Property
Category:Prophecy
Category:Prostitution
Category:Proverbs
Category:Psalms
Category:Questions about Biblical justice in economics
Category:Questions about civil government formation, powers, and limits
Category:Questions about Jesus' teaching on the law
Category:Questions about judicial procedure and due process
Category:Questions about marriage and family
Category:Questions about Paul's teaching on the law
Category:Questions about penalties and restitution
Category:Questions about property rights and stewardship
Category:Questions about the differences in law between the covenants
Category:Questions about the differing treatment of persons in Biblical law
Category:Questions about the general applicability or relevance of God's law
Category:Questions about the historical application of Biblical law
Category:Questions about the organization and character of Biblical law
Category:Questions about the relationship of the church (Christian assembly) and civil government
Category:Questions about various individual laws
Category:Questions about witnesses and evidence
Category:Questions comparing Biblical law to other legal systems
Category:Rape
Category:Reconciliation
Category:Redemption
Category:Responsibilities
Category:Restitution
Category:Restorative Justice
Category:Retributive Justice
Category:Revelation
Category:Ritual Cleanness
Category:Romans
Category:Ruth
Category:Sabbath
Category:Sacrifice
Category:Sacrificial Regulations
Category:Sanctification
Category:Scripture
Category:Second Death
Category:Self-defense
Category:Separation of church and civil government
Category:Sexual Sin
Category:Sexuality
Category:Sin
Category:Sinai Covenant
Category:Slander
Category:Slavery
Category:Sojourners
Category:Solomon
Category:Song of Songs
Category:Statute of Limitations
Category:Stewardship
Category:Striking a parent
Category:Taxes
Category:Temple Prostitution
Category:Theft
Category:Tithe
Category:Titus
Category:Trade
Category:Tripart Division
Category:Typological Function
Category:Typological/Ceremonial Law
Category:Unanswered Questions
Category:Vicarious Punishment
Category:Widows
Category:Witness testimony
Category:Work
Category:Worship
Category:Zechariah
Category:Zephaniah
Chiasm in Exod. 21:15-17
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
Classificationname
Colossiansname
CreateNotename
Danielname
Deuteronomyname
Did Jesus break Biblical law by working on the Sabbath?
Did Jesus really support the death penalty for cursing a parent?
Didn't the law under the Sinai Covenant allow divorce for any cause?
Do the gleaning laws allow civil government to coerce individuals or businesses to give up wealth or other private property?
Documentationname
Does Biblical law have "statutes of limitation" for prosecuting crime?
Does Biblical law really allow a father to sell his daughter into slavery?
Does Biblical law require a girl to marry her rapist?
Does Biblical law require employers to pay their employees daily?
Does Deuteronomy 22:25-29 imply that the rape of an unbetrothed girl is not a death penalty offense?
Does Joseph's intent to divorce Mary show that the death penalty for adultery was not mandatory?
Does the divorce of the foreign women in Ezra 9-10 show that civil government has authority to dissolve marriages or preside over "divorce trials"?
Does the proverb about the jealous husband show that prostitution is legal? (Prov. 6:32-35)
Does theonomy require commitment to a particular view of eschatology (end times)?
Doesn't the Code of Hammurabi "eye for an eye" concept predate Biblical law?
Ecclesiastesname
Ephesiansname
Esthername
Exodusname
Ezekielname
Ezraname
Fulfillmentname
Functional Categorization of the Law
Galatiansname
Genesis 1:22
Genesisname
Habakkukname
Haggainame
HebrewScriptureBooks
HebrewScripturesname
Hebrewsname
Helpsname
Hoseaname
How did Jesus "fulfill" the Law? (Matt. 5:17-19)
How does Biblical law create the strongest possible "Rule of Law"?
How To Contribute
How to use the Quote template
How to use the Scriptblock template
How to use the Scriptblockformat template
How to use the scripture function
In what way was Jesus' command in John 13:34 "new"?
Interpretationname
Introduction to Theonomy
Is every law of God bound to a particular covenant?
Is the polygyny of the Old Covenant allowed in the New Covenant age?
Is the premarital unchastity case of Deut. 22:13 an example of the justice system assuming guilt until a defendant proves her innocence?
Is there a "two tables" division in the Ten Commandments?
Isaiahname
Jamesname
Jeremiahname
Jobname
Joelname
Johnname
Jonahname
Joshuaname
Judename
Judgesname
Lamentationsname
LawAnalysisoverviewname
Lawcommandanalysisname
LawFunctionsname
Leviticusname
List of Topics
ListofTopicsname
Lukename
Malachiname
Markname
Matthewname
Micahname
Nahumname
Nehemiahname
NewTestamentBooks
NewTestamentname
Notesname
NotesonInterpretationApplicationname
Notesoverviewname
Numbersname
Obadiahname
Parallel in Deut. 15:12
Philemonname
Philippiansname
Podcastsname
Primarysourcedocumentsname
Prohibition on vicarious punishment
Proverbsname
Psalmname
Psalmsname
Questionsname
Questionsoverviewname
Revelationname
Romansname
Ruthname
Scripturename
SeeAlsoname
SongofSongsname
Status of a wife provided to a freed slave
Subtopics
Subtopicsname
TemplatesReferencename
TheCommandname
Theonomy Wiki
Theonomy Wiki:Copyrights
TheonomyStudyBiblename
Titusname
Topicsname
TypologicalFunctionname
UnansweredQuestionsname
Verse parallel to absolute infinitive for stoning
Websitesname
What was the purpose of the Numbers 5 dusty(or "bitter") water test?
Why is false prophecy a death penalty crime?
Zechariahname
Zephaniahname
Language
aa - Qafár af
ab - Аҧсшәа
abs - bahasa ambon
ace - Acèh
ady - адыгабзэ
ady-cyrl - адыгабзэ
aeb - تونسي/Tûnsî
aeb-arab - تونسي
aeb-latn - Tûnsî
af - Afrikaans
ak - Akan
aln - Gegë
alt - тÿштÿк алтай тил
am - አማርኛ
ami - Pangcah
an - aragonés
ang - Ænglisc
anp - अङ्गिका
ar - العربية
arc - ܐܪܡܝܐ
arn - mapudungun
arq - جازايرية
ary - الدارجة
arz - مصرى
as - অসমীয়া
ase - American sign language
ast - asturianu
atj - Atikamekw
av - авар
avk - Kotava
awa - अवधी
ay - Aymar aru
az - azərbaycanca
azb - تۆرکجه
ba - башҡортса
ban - Bali
bar - Boarisch
bbc - Batak Toba
bbc-latn - Batak Toba
bcc - جهلسری بلوچی
bcl - Bikol Central
be - беларуская
be-tarask - беларуская (тарашкевіца)
bg - български
bgn - روچ کپتین بلوچی
bh - भोजपुरी
bho - भोजपुरी
bi - Bislama
bjn - Banjar
bm - bamanankan
bn - বাংলা
bo - བོད་ཡིག
bpy - বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
bqi - بختیاری
br - brezhoneg
brh - Bráhuí
bs - bosanski
btm - Batak Mandailing
bto - Iriga Bicolano
bug - ᨅᨔ ᨕᨘᨁᨗ
bxr - буряад
ca - català
cbk-zam - Chavacano de Zamboanga
cdo - Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄
ce - нохчийн
ceb - Cebuano
ch - Chamoru
cho - Choctaw
chr - ᏣᎳᎩ
chy - Tsetsêhestâhese
ckb - کوردی
co - corsu
cps - Capiceño
cr - Nēhiyawēwin / ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ
crh - qırımtatarca
crh-cyrl - къырымтатарджа (Кирилл)
crh-latn - qırımtatarca (Latin)
cs - čeština
csb - kaszëbsczi
cu - словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ
cv - Чӑвашла
cy - Cymraeg
da - dansk
de - Deutsch
de-at - Österreichisches Deutsch
de-ch - Schweizer Hochdeutsch
de-formal - Deutsch (Sie-Form)
din - Thuɔŋjäŋ
diq - Zazaki
dsb - dolnoserbski
dtp - Dusun Bundu-liwan
dty - डोटेली
dv - ދިވެހިބަސް
dz - ཇོང་ཁ
ee - eʋegbe
egl - Emiliàn
el - Ελληνικά
eml - emiliàn e rumagnòl
en - English
en-ca - Canadian English
en-gb - British English
eo - Esperanto
es - español
es-419 - español de América Latina
es-formal - español (formal)
et - eesti
eu - euskara
ext - estremeñu
fa - فارسی
ff - Fulfulde
fi - suomi
fit - meänkieli
fj - Na Vosa Vakaviti
fo - føroyskt
fr - français
frc - français cadien
frp - arpetan
frr - Nordfriisk
fur - furlan
fy - Frysk
ga - Gaeilge
gag - Gagauz
gan - 贛語
gan-hans - 赣语(简体)
gan-hant - 贛語(繁體)
gcr - kriyòl gwiyannen
gd - Gàidhlig
gl - galego
glk - گیلکی
gn - Avañe'ẽ
gom - गोंयची कोंकणी / Gõychi Konknni
gom-deva - गोंयची कोंकणी
gom-latn - Gõychi Konknni
gor - Bahasa Hulontalo
got - 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
grc - Ἀρχαία ἑλληνικὴ
gsw - Alemannisch
gu - ગુજરાતી
gv - Gaelg
ha - Hausa
hak - 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
haw - Hawaiʻi
hb - Classical Hebrew
he - עברית
hi - हिन्दी
hif - Fiji Hindi
hif-latn - Fiji Hindi
hil - Ilonggo
ho - Hiri Motu
hr - hrvatski
hrx - Hunsrik
hsb - hornjoserbsce
ht - Kreyòl ayisyen
hu - magyar
hu-formal - magyar (formal)
hy - հայերեն
hyw - Արեւմտահայերէն
hz - Otsiherero
ia - interlingua
id - Bahasa Indonesia
ie - Interlingue
ig - Igbo
ii - ꆇꉙ
ik - Iñupiak
ike-cans - ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ
ike-latn - inuktitut
ilo - Ilokano
inh - ГӀалгӀай
io - Ido
is - íslenska
it - italiano
iu - ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut
ja - 日本語
jam - Patois
jbo - la .lojban.
jut - jysk
jv - Jawa
ka - ქართული
kaa - Qaraqalpaqsha
kab - Taqbaylit
kbd - Адыгэбзэ
kbd-cyrl - Адыгэбзэ
kbp - Kabɩyɛ
kg - Kongo
khw - کھوار
ki - Gĩkũyũ
kiu - Kırmancki
kj - Kwanyama
kjp - ဖၠုံလိက်
kk - қазақша
kk-arab - قازاقشا (تٴوتە)
kk-cn - قازاقشا (جۇنگو)
kk-cyrl - қазақша (кирил)
kk-kz - қазақша (Қазақстан)
kk-latn - qazaqşa (latın)
kk-tr - qazaqşa (Türkïya)
kl - kalaallisut
km - ភាសាខ្មែរ
kn - ಕನ್ನಡ
ko - 한국어
ko-kp - 조선말
koi - Перем Коми
kr - Kanuri
krc - къарачай-малкъар
kri - Krio
krj - Kinaray-a
krl - karjal
ks - कॉशुर / کٲشُر
ks-arab - کٲشُر
ks-deva - कॉशुर
ksh - Ripoarisch
ku - kurdî
ku-arab - كوردي (عەرەبی)
ku-latn - kurdî (latînî)
kum - къумукъ
kv - коми
kw - kernowek
ky - Кыргызча
la - Latina
lad - Ladino
lb - Lëtzebuergesch
lbe - лакку
lez - лезги
lfn - Lingua Franca Nova
lg - Luganda
li - Limburgs
lij - Ligure
liv - Līvõ kēļ
lki - لەکی
lld - Ladin
lmo - lumbaart
ln - lingála
lo - ລາວ
loz - Silozi
lrc - لۊری شومالی
lt - lietuvių
ltg - latgaļu
lus - Mizo ţawng
luz - لئری دوٙمینی
lv - latviešu
lzh - 文言
lzz - Lazuri
mai - मैथिली
map-bms - Basa Banyumasan
mdf - мокшень
mg - Malagasy
mh - Ebon
mhr - олык марий
mi - Māori
min - Minangkabau
mk - македонски
ml - മലയാളം
mn - монгол
mni - ꯃꯤꯇꯩ ꯂꯣꯟ
mnw - ဘာသာ မန်
mo - молдовеняскэ
mr - मराठी
mrj - кырык мары
ms - Bahasa Melayu
mt - Malti
mus - Mvskoke
mwl - Mirandés
my - မြန်မာဘာသာ
myv - эрзянь
mzn - مازِرونی
na - Dorerin Naoero
nah - Nāhuatl
nan - Bân-lâm-gú
nap - Napulitano
nb - norsk bokmål
nds - Plattdüütsch
nds-nl - Nedersaksies
ne - नेपाली
new - नेपाल भाषा
ng - Oshiwambo
niu - Niuē
nl - Nederlands
nl-informal - Nederlands (informeel)
nn - norsk nynorsk
no - norsk
nov - Novial
nqo - ߒߞߏ
nrm - Nouormand
nso - Sesotho sa Leboa
nv - Diné bizaad
ny - Chi-Chewa
nys - Nyunga
oc - occitan
olo - Livvinkarjala
om - Oromoo
or - ଓଡ଼ିଆ
os - Ирон
pa - ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
pag - Pangasinan
pam - Kapampangan
pap - Papiamentu
pcd - Picard
pdc - Deitsch
pdt - Plautdietsch
pfl - Pälzisch
pi - पालि
pih - Norfuk / Pitkern
pl - polski
pms - Piemontèis
pnb - پنجابی
pnt - Ποντιακά
prg - Prūsiskan
ps - پښتو
pt - português
pt-br - português do Brasil
qu - Runa Simi
qug - Runa shimi
rgn - Rumagnôl
rif - Tarifit
rm - rumantsch
rmy - romani čhib
rn - Kirundi
ro - română
roa-tara - tarandíne
ru - русский
rue - русиньскый
rup - armãneashti
ruq - Vlăheşte
ruq-cyrl - Влахесте
ruq-latn - Vlăheşte
rw - Kinyarwanda
sa - संस्कृतम्
sah - саха тыла
sat - ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
sc - sardu
scn - sicilianu
sco - Scots
sd - سنڌي
sdc - Sassaresu
sdh - کوردی خوارگ
se - davvisámegiella
sei - Cmique Itom
ses - Koyraboro Senni
sg - Sängö
sgs - žemaitėška
sh - srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
shi - Tašlḥiyt/ⵜⴰⵛⵍⵃⵉⵜ
shi-latn - Tašlḥiyt
shi-tfng - ⵜⴰⵛⵍⵃⵉⵜ
shn - ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
shy-latn - tacawit
si - සිංහල
simple - Simple English
sk - slovenčina
skr - سرائیکی
skr-arab - سرائیکی
sl - slovenščina
sli - Schläsch
sm - Gagana Samoa
sma - åarjelsaemien
smn - anarâškielâ
sn - chiShona
so - Soomaaliga
sq - shqip
sr - српски / srpski
sr-ec - српски (ћирилица)
sr-el - srpski (latinica)
srn - Sranantongo
ss - SiSwati
st - Sesotho
stq - Seeltersk
sty - себертатар
su - Sunda
sv - svenska
sw - Kiswahili
szl - ślůnski
szy - Sakizaya
ta - தமிழ்
tay - Tayal
tcy - ತುಳು
te - తెలుగు
tet - tetun
tg - тоҷикӣ
tg-cyrl - тоҷикӣ
tg-latn - tojikī
th - ไทย
ti - ትግርኛ
tk - Türkmençe
tl - Tagalog
tly - толышә зывон
tn - Setswana
to - lea faka-Tonga
tpi - Tok Pisin
tr - Türkçe
tru - Ṫuroyo
trv - Seediq
ts - Xitsonga
tt - татарча/tatarça
tt-cyrl - татарча
tt-latn - tatarça
tum - chiTumbuka
tw - Twi
ty - reo tahiti
tyv - тыва дыл
tzm - ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ
udm - удмурт
ug - ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche
ug-arab - ئۇيغۇرچە
ug-latn - Uyghurche
uk - українська
ur - اردو
uz - oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча
uz-cyrl - ўзбекча
uz-latn - oʻzbekcha
ve - Tshivenda
vec - vèneto
vep - vepsän kel’
vi - Tiếng Việt
vls - West-Vlams
vmf - Mainfränkisch
vo - Volapük
vot - Vaďďa
vro - Võro
wa - walon
war - Winaray
wo - Wolof
wuu - 吴语
xal - хальмг
xh - isiXhosa
xmf - მარგალური
xsy - saisiyat
yi - ייִדיש
yo - Yorùbá
yue - 粵語
za - Vahcuengh
zea - Zeêuws
zgh - ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ ⵜⴰⵏⴰⵡⴰⵢⵜ
zh - 中文
zh-cn - 中文(中国大陆)
zh-hans - 中文(简体)
zh-hant - 中文(繁體)
zh-hk - 中文(香港)
zh-mo - 中文(澳門)
zh-my - 中文(马来西亚)
zh-sg - 中文(新加坡)
zh-tw - 中文(台灣)
zu - isiZulu
qqq - Message documentation
Format
Export for off-line translation
Export in native format
Fetch
<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}} <div class="questionbody"> This might sound like an odd question to some, but this is a serious proposition to some students of Biblical law. Here is an example of the argument, from Philip Kayser's book <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>: {{:Quote|However, perhaps the most significant illustration of this leeway in the law is the case of adultery. Leviticus 20:10 is one of several passages calling for the death penalty on adultery using that phrase, <em>möt yumat</em>. It says, “The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.”<br/><br/> The phrase <em>möt yumat</em> is clearly tied to adultery, yet Scripture makes clear that the victim of the adultery is not required to prosecute, and if he or she does prosecute, he or she is not required to ask for the maximum penalty. Matthew 1:19 draws attention to Joseph’s uprightness when he chooses not to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law - “Then Joseph her husband, <em>being a just man</em>, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.” He chose not to impose the death penalty upon her (making her a “public example”), but the text makes it clear that this quiet divorce was consistent with Biblical justice. It says, “being a just man” he did this.<ref>Kayser, <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>, p. 24</ref>}} Kayser's intent, in the above example, is to show that the phrase <em>möt yumat</em> (often translated "he shall surely die") does not always signify that death is the just penalty for witnessed adultery in all cases, but merely shows a "maximum" penalty for this crime. And if we take his "Joseph and Mary" example at face value, then it seems that he would suggest even <em>no civil government penalty</em> might be considered a possible "just" outcome from the Biblical perspective (because Joseph's intent merely to divorce came with no civil penalty). He is following Gary North's "victim's rights" theology, whereby the "victim" of the crime (in this case, the husband) is assumed to have the power to negate a legal penalty. Gary North even relies upon the same "Joseph and Mary" example as a lynch-pin for his argument in his book <em>Victim's Rights</em>: {{:Quote|I am arguing in this chapter that the State possesses no independent authority to prosecute if the victim voluntarily decides not to prosecute an argument based heavily on Joseph’s decision as a just man to put Mary away privately.<ref>Gary North, <em>Victim's Rights</em>, p. 32</ref>}} In fact, the primary thesis of North's book falls apart if he cannot use the Joseph and Mary case to back it up. Kayser's application of this thesis is: {{:Quote|Scripture makes clear that the victim of the adultery is not required to prosecute, and if he or she does prosecute, he or she is not required to ask for the maximum penalty.<ref>Kayser, <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>, p. 24</ref>}} We'll separate Kayser's claim into two statements: #The victim of adultery is not required to prosecute. #A victim of adultery who prosecutes can ask for a lesser penalty than the death penalty. Neither of these statements is "clear" from scripture, much less the "Joseph and Mary" example. For the sake of argument, let's assume that statement number 1 is true, and that Joseph could be considered a "just man" by refusing to prosecute Mary for adultery. I affirm with scripture, of course, that Joseph was a "just man." We will discuss Joseph's situation in detail later and discover some obvious reasons why he would not prosecute Mary. But Kayser is attempting to conflate the two issues above when he states that Joseph "chooses not to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law". In fact, Joseph chose not to "prosecute" <em>at all</em>. He was intending to "put away" (divorce) Mary <em>privately</em>. Under Biblical law, there were no "private" or "secret" courts: cases were handled at the city gates, in the most public way, so that everyone could see that justice was being done, and anyone could speak up if they wanted to contradict a false witness. This may surprise some people, but under Biblical law, men were not required to get permission from the civil government to divorce their wives (Deut. 24:1). I'll discuss this in greater detail below, because this is another point which Kayser gets wrong. Men <em>were</em> required by Biblical law to issue a "writ of divorcement," but this was not "supervised" or "authorized" by any judge, and did not require any public (or even private) "prosecution." Under Biblical law, a judge would only be sought out (by Mary, presumably) if Joseph refused to give her the writ, as he was required to by law. So, if statement number 1 is true in the case of Joseph, then statement number 2 cannot logically follow from the Joseph and Mary case. If Joseph refused to prosecute (as the scripture in Matthew implies), then <em>we don't know what penalty he would have asked for</em>, because he was never in a position to ask for a penalty from a judge. For all we know, if he had decided to prosecute (we'll see why he didn't in a moment), he might very well have supported the death penalty. Of course, in the real world, the angel intervened, even before the divorce. But would anyone suggest that Joseph would have been "unjust" to support the death penalty for adultery? Even Philip Kayser believes that the death penalty for adultery is "just."<ref>"To argue against applying the death penalty to Biblical crimes is to question God’s wisdom and justice, to denigrate His Word and to leave us without any objective standard by which we can oppose tyranny." (Kayser, <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>, p. 27)</ref> Let's look closer at Joseph's (difficult) situation, and why he would choose not to prosecute. Here are some things we know for sure: #Mary and Joseph were betrothed. #Adultery against a betrothal covenant is a death penalty offense (if there are at least two witnesses willing to step forward): Deut. 22:23-24. #Joseph thought that Mary had committed adultery (otherwise he would not have intended to divorce her; he was a "just man," and a just man would only divorce for some kind of adultery/fornication: Matt. 19:4). #Joseph had no witnesses to the adultery to present to a judge. How would he have proved that he wasn't the father, unless two witnesses were prepared to testify? Of course, he could testify to his own behavior, but that is only one witness. (see below about whether Mary was allowed to testify) #Mary had (surely) told Joseph the good news that the angel had announced to her. Joseph, understandably, didn't believe her, but he could not know for sure that she was lying. What if she were telling the truth? #If Joseph were a "just man" (and he certainly was), then he would be committed to upholding just Biblical legal procedure, which would have allowed the defendant to testify in defense of herself in court, before the judges. However, Mary would not, in first century Judea, have been allowed to testify in her own defense (relaying what the angel had told her), because women were not allowed to testify in the unjust Jewish courts of that time. Joseph would be placing her at the mercy of an inherently unjust legal procedure, because they were not following Biblical law. #In fact, to bring a death penalty charge, (even if Joseph had witnesses, which he did not) Joseph would have had to take Mary all the way down to Jerusalem, to stand before the highest court in Judea -- the Sanhedrin -- which was (at this time) the <em>only</em> court authorized by the Roman government to convict people on death penalty offenses like adultery. Furthermore, at the time of Jesus birth, the Sanhedrin had been packed with Herod the Great's chosen lackeys (because he had killed off most of the previous members, according to the Jewish historian Josephus). No "righteous man" in Judea would have expected true justice from Herod's Sanhedrin. #Consider what might have happened if Joseph had gone before the Sanhedrin and had been asked (under oath) what Mary's explanation was (because she herself couldn't testify)? To testify truthfully, Joseph would have to have said: "She claims that she was visited by an angel, and that God had created the child she is carrying, and that 'The Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his kingdom.' [Luke 1:32-33]" Herod's lackeys would have promptly reported this to Herod, and we know how long the innocent child would have lasted from that point (see Matt. 2:16-18). Joseph, being a righteous (and wise) man, would not have wanted to put an innocent child at risk in this way. Given all of the above facts, is it any wonder that Joseph could not have gotten a "just" outcome from <em>any</em> court he had access to? Can his choice not to go before unjust judges be used to imply <em>anything</em> about Biblical law? The answer is clearly no. There is no evidence of an alleged "victim's right" to dismiss a mandatory death penalty crime from the case of Joseph and Mary. On the other hand, Joseph had a Biblical right to divorce Mary <em>privately</em> without having to prove adultery (Deut. 24), and that's what he was planning to do. This is yet another point which Kayser gets wrong: {{:Quote|Indeed, if this interpretation of the crime of adultery is not taken, then it is impossible to understand the many passages that allow sexual sins as grounds for divorce. (How can there be a divorce if the penalty of death always had to be applied?!) ... Christ made clear that adultery was grounds for divorce in Matt. 5:31-32. If you could prove adultery in court to sue for divorce, you could certainly use the same grounds for capital punishment. You couldn’t just divorce people because you thought they had committed adultery. Deuteronomy 22:17-19 makes that clear. The case had to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in court. In Ezra 10, Ezra tried each case of improper marriage on its own merit. He didn’t make everyone with a non-Israelite wife divorce her. That would be unlawful according to Deuteronomy 21 and other passages. Paul is applying the Old Testament when he tells believers not to leave unbelievers who are willing to dwell with them. And if you read the chapter carefully you will see that Ezra didn’t do it. Each couple had a court case examination, and Ezra said, “Let it be done according to the law.”<ref>Kayser, <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>, p. 24</ref>}} Kayser brings up two scriptural cases which -- he asserts -- show that men were required to get civil government permission before divorce. Let's look at each of them. 1. Deuteronomy 22:13-19 is a case of a husband publicly slandering his wife about premarital unfaithfulness ([[Is_the_premarital_unchastity_case_of_Deut._22:13_an_example_of_the_justice_system_assuming_guilt_until_a_defendant_proves_her_innocence?|discussed here]]). It doesn't state that he was seeking a divorce, or even that he had actually divorced her by putting her away. It doesn't state that he had brought witnesses before a judge to prove a case of adultery. It doesn't state that he is required to go before the judge before getting a divorce. Verse 14 simply states that the man is slandering his wife publicly (and, by implication, bringing dishonor upon her parents). The judges -- far from already knowing any facts of the case -- actually have to be told by the girl's father what the man has been saying (see verses 16-17). The case in verses 13 through 19 is not dealing with a man who accuses his wife in court either of adultery or lying about her virginity (these death penalty offenses would require at least two actual witnesses, according to the explicit law in Deut. 19:15). This case is describing a legal action brought by the parents of the girl against the man's public slander. The parents are able to prove the husband's slander by the use of the "evidences of virginity" (possibly a blood-soaked garment). The lack of such evidence does not prove the girl's guilt -- it's lack would simply prevent the parents from challenging the husband's slander, in the first case. The separate case cited in verses 20-21 would require the husband to bring at least two witnesses against the girl (in accordance with Deut. 19:15) and would result in a mandatory death penalty (v. 21), not simply divorce. 2. The action by Ezra described in Ezra 9-10 dealt with Israelites who had returned after the Babylonian captivity, and had married foreign wives, in violation of the law in Deuteronomy 7. Kayser claims: "Ezra tried each case of improper marriage on its own merit."<ref>Kayser, <em>Is the Death Penalty Just?</em>, p. 25</ref> This is a false claim, with which I deal in the following answer: {{:Translink|Does the divorce of the foreign women in Ezra 9-10 show that civil government has authority to dissolve marriages or preside over "divorce trials"?}} Kayser claims: "Paul is applying the Old Testament when he tells believers not to leave unbelievers who are willing to dwell with them."<ref>Kayser, Is the Death Penalty Just?, p. 25</ref> This claim actually has nothing to do with "proven" adultery as a valid ground for divorce, or with the alleged Biblical requirement to get civil government permission before issuing a divorce certificate. Paul is simply telling Christians who converted after they were married not to separate from their spouses (divorce), merely because their spouses were still non-Christians. This is not comparable to the case in Ezra, where the men willingly entered into Biblically-<em>illegal</em> "marriages." </div> {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}}}} [[Category:Adultery]] [[Category:Answered Questions]] [[Category:Betrothal]] [[Category:Capital Punishment]] [[Category:Divorce]] [[Category:Matthew 1:19]] [[Category:Questions about marriage and family]] [[Category:Questions about penalties and restitution]] [[Category:Questions about the historical application of Biblical law]]