On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Doug Henwood wrote:
> I read in today's NY Times that the original Old Testament prohibition
> against adultery applied to married women, as part of the effort of keeping
> the lineage clear. So it was more a matter of property than propriety. But
> by the original definition, Clinton wasn't an adulterer! Is this really the
> case?
>
I got so carried away with my bible quoting that I neglected to answer the
question. The question is the wrong one to ask. She's jewish, he's not.
Taking the hegrew bible literally, my suspicion is that she, as an
*israelite* would be killed for sleeping with a foreigner. Not sure what
would happen to him--probably nothing--the expectation seemed to be that
non-israelites would behave badly. But, he's a southern baptist. And the
apostle Paul clearly states that the laws do not hold for christians, what
matters is faith. So Hebrew bible laws are, for him, competely irrelevant.
In Matthew we read that anyone who lusts in his heart is an adulterer.
Presumably that remains true for those whose heartfelt lust manifests
itself physically. So, yes, he's an adulterer.
Frances