Jesus 'Defended a Woman From Being Slut-Shamed'?

This latest Facebook Polemic is a farrago of contemporary slang applied anachronistically to first-century Palestine - as well as it is full of irresponsible eisegesis.

Among its several errors, the most obvious – and egregious – example of misreading appears in the phrase “Defended a woman from being slut shamed and killed…”

According to an online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “slut shame” designates an act of: “Stigmatiz[ing] (a woman) for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative”. Example sentences are given as: “she was slut-shamed for wearing a bikini” and “you can’t talk about sex without getting gossiped about or slut-shamed”.

Presumably, the author of the above picture-text has in mind the episode, recorded by John the Evangelist (John 8:1-11), of the “woman caught in the act of adultery.”[1]

Here is the entire relevant passage, from the New International Version [2]of the Bible:

[B]ut Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

One question is this: If the story of the woman caught in adultery is illustrative of the injustice in a certain sort of “judgmentalism,” what sort of “judgment” is supposed to be forbidden?

The story suggests the following moral argument.

(1) Adultery is morally wrong. [moral premise]

(2) “[T]his woman was caught in the act of adultery.” [observational premise]

(3) Therefore, “this woman” has done something morally wrong. [theoretical conclusion]

(4) Women who have committed adultery should be “stoned” (to death). [punitive premise]

(5) Therefore, “this woman” should be stoned (to death). [practical conclusion]

At what step does Jesus intervene?

Notice that Jesus never disputes the wrongness of adultery. He never questions the moral premise. In fact, Jesus endorses it.

This is apparent from the fact that Jesus concludes his comments to “the woman” with the admonition: “Go now and leave your life of sin.”[3]

If the woman is commanded to “leave [her] life of sin,” then, manifestly, she is presently leading a life of sin. The only relevant information that we have about her life is that she is an adulteress. Therefore, Jesus is either (and implausibly) speaking of “other,” unspecified sins, or Jesus is speaking of her adultery as a sin.

Indisputably, the most natural reading of the text is that Jesus is here saying that the woman’s adulterous behavior is tantamount to “leading a life of sin.” But, if so, then Jesus is acknowledging that adultery is morally wrong.

We may conclude, then, that Jesus accepted the Pharisee’s labeling of the relevant woman. She was an adulteress, with the entire “stigma” that that term implied.

However, if “slut shaming” is characterized by “stigmatiz[ing] (a woman) for engaging in behavior judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative,” and if adultery is included among the list of behaviors “judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative,” then it follows that Jesus was “slut-shaming.”

In the opinion of this writer, “slut-shaming” is a ridiculous and faddish slang term and should be avoided. Jesus’s ultimate purpose was to point “the woman” toward the road of salvation. The politically-incorrect fact is that repentance – or the turning-away from sin and toward God – can only be effected once one acknowledges his or her own sinfulness.

Those who wish to employ “weasel words” like “shaming” such that all (or some subset of) violations of God’s laws may not, for fear of breach of social etiquette, be labeled “sins,” really do disservice to sinners. Insofar as charity (i.e., Christian love) is concerned, it is impossible for a person to express genuine love for John Doe if that person encourages – implicitly or explicitly – John Doe to continue in behavior that will lead to the eternal damnation of his immortal soul.

This, however disagreeable the sentiments may be to the “liberal” mind, is simply the historic Christian view.

In his Quest for the Historical Jesus,[4] Albert Schweitzer criticized those scholars whose attempts to “discover the historical Jesus” merely amounted to the creation of a Jesus in the image of the particular scholar who happened to be writing.

“Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it whatever it is that they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find.”[5]

Actually, this is not new. In the Second Epistle to Timothy, in the Bible, we read: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”[6]

It is therefore unsurprising that embedded within this “liberal”-biased Facebook Polemic is a “liberal”-colored misunderstanding (if not willful misrepresentation) of a particular biblical episode.

Jesus did oppose the hypocritical Pharisee’s attempt to summarily execute the adulteress. He thus did indeed oppose (what I labeled) the “practical conclusion,” as given in the argument above.

Jesus counseled the woman to quit her adulterous behavior and turn to God in repentance. The Pharisees were out to satiate their bloodlust. However, neither position invalidated – or even called into question – the moral impermissibility of adultery.

Notes:

---

[1] I have discussed this passage at length elsewhere. See here and here.

[2] The New International Version, being a sort of “dynamic equivalence” translation, is simply easier to understand than “classics” such as the Catholic Douay–Rheims and the Protestant King James Version. Nothing substantial, therefore, turns on my selection. It is merely for the sake of convenience.

[3] Far from negating the moral premise, Jesus elsewhere extends it. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30.)

We see, then, that Jesus not only “accepts” the notion of the sinfulness of physical acts of adultery, but he broadens the definition to encompass instances of adulterous fantasizes. Furthermore, he indicates one, ultimate punishment: hell. This does not appear at all consistent with the notion that Jesus denies the sin of adultery.

[4] Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen: Mohr, 1906; in English as Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Francis Crawford Burkitt, ed., William Montgomery, transl., London: A. and C. Black; New York: Macmillan, 1910.

[5] Shaye I.D. Cohen; interviewed in “Searching for Jesus,” Frontline, PBS, <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/searching.html>.

[6] 2 Timothy 4:3.

Jesus 'Never Said Anything' About Homosexuality?

(Source: http://loltheists.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jesus-on-being-gay.png.)

Here we see another example of (what I have termed) a “Facebook Polemic.”[i]

Obviously this polemic asserts that Jesus didn’t “say anything” about homosexuality.

Is this an argument? One way to lay out this complaint in argument form would be as follows.

1. If Jesus does not explicitly mention an activity, then that activity is permissible.

2. Jesus never mentions homosexual sex.

3. Therefore, homosexual sex is permissible.

There are a number of problems with this argument. I will list three.[ii]

Number one, Jesus never mentioned a number of other, obviously morally wrong acts. For example, Jesus never mentioned torturing children.[iii] However, it would obviously be unacceptable to conclude, from this observation alone, that torturing children is thereby permissible.[iv] The mere fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexual sex is therefore insufficient reason to conclude that homosexual sex is permissible.

Number two, no reasons have been given to think that what Jesus does not say should be given priority over what other biblical authors, for example Paul, did say.[v] In other words, why should a Christian limit his or her consultation on moral matters to the recorded words of Jesus? After all, Christians have historically held that the entire Bible is a reliable (if sometimes obscure) moral guide.[vi]

Number three, it is arguable that Jesus did indeed mention homosexual sin after all.

Firstly, Jesus mentions Sodom and Gomorrah in various passages (e.g., Matthew 10:15, 11:23ff, Luke 10:12, & 17:29). If “Sodom and Gomorrah” is, as is traditionally understood – an allusion to homosexual sin, that is, sodomy – then these references would plausibly be sufficient to deny the assertion that Jesus “never said anything about homosexuality.”

Secondly, Jesus explicitly endorsed the definition of marriage, first set forth in the book of Genesis,[vii] as an arrangement between a man and woman. According to Jesus “[A]t the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female [Gen. 1:27].’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh [Gen. 2:24].’” Hence, we might ask, “Why should Jesus need to (redundantly) forbid what he has already excluded in virtue of his definition of marriage?”

---

[i] For an explanation of this term, see: http://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/facebook-polemics.html.

[ii] A more subtle worry than those discussed above lies with the first premise. A person who advocates the permissibility of same-sex sexual behavior likely favors a principle such as that which constitutes premise 1: “Whatever is not explicitly forbidden [in Scripture or by Jesus, etc.] is permissible.” However, selection of this sort of principle – called a “regulative principle” – needs to be justified. Insofar as the reason for the selection is simply the desirability of a particular conclusion, the principle seems to be ad hoc. The opponent of same-sex sexual behaviors might adopt a different regulative principle. For instance, why not prefer: “Whatever is not expressly commanded [in Scripture or by Jesus, etc.] is forbidden”? (For more on regulative principles, see Robert C. Walton, Chronological and Background Charts of Church History, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986, chart 42.)

The choice of regulative principle is, plausibly, at least as controversial as the judgment regarding the permissibility of same-sex sexual behavior activity.

[iii] Jesus does not explicitly mention suicide either. Many (although probably not all) Christians would be sympathetic to the view that suicide is sinful. However, this judgment arises out of such considerations as the Bible’s overall respect for human life, emphasis upon the sovereignty of God in all matter and prohibition of taking life without just cause – chiefly with the aim of preserving life (as in extreme cases of self-defense).

[iv] I anticipate, at this point, that a hostile interlocutor will want distinguish between “harmful” and “harmless” acts, in such a way that that homosexual sex will be considered “harmless.” I have treated this at greater length elsewhere. Suffice it to say, here, that on the historic Christian view, a human being is possessed of both a body and a soul. “Harm” then can come to either the body or the soul, or both. Jesus himself warns: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell”, Matthew 10:28, NIV.

However, plausibly, “sin” can be defined as (something like) “a transgression of God’s law that harms the soul.” If so, then if homosexual sex is a sin, then homosexual sex harms the soul. But if that is so, then it will not be the case that homosexual sex is “harmless.”

It must first be shown that homosexual sex is not a sin before it can be shown that engaging in homosexual sex does not “harm.” For the historic Christian can merely rejoin: Homosexual sex is sinful. Whatever is sinful is harmful. Therefore, homosexual sex is harmful.

As an aside, penetrative anal sex is also arguably harmful physically. “…Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following: The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. ...The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection. The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. ...The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. ...Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections. ...Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. ...The only way to completely avoid anal sex risks is to abstain from anal sex. ...”. “Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns,” WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns and http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-healthconcerns?page=2.

Incidentally, this would of course apply equally to heterosexual as well as homosexual instances of anal sex.

[v] Paul wrote: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians chapter 6, verses 9-10.)

[vi] We could replace the phrase “the entire Bible” with other phrases like “the New Testament,” “Church doctrine” or “Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition” in order to generate other competing principles which we have also been given no reasons to disfavor.

[vii] Chapter 2, verses 22-24.

Note: I have no clue as to whether or not Stephen Colbert actually made the remarks seemingly attributed to him in the picture-text. For all I know, the ascription is erroneous. Nothing in my reply turns on this point.

"According to the Bible" Polemic

Here, again, is a further example of "Facebook-polemic."

As many of the deficiencies present in this instance are shared with another recently circulated picture, and as I have already been dealt with them in a previous post, I will try to keep the present text brief. As with the example remarked upon previously, one should notice immediately the inconsistency with respect to citation method. Only two of the six bullet-pointed statements have had any citations offered at all. Presumably, the intended audience for this piece will not require documentation of the allegations.

The "men of God" reference betrays a failure to make the elementary distinction between prescription (i.e., roughly, what the Bible advances as normative for marriage) and description (i.e., again roughly, what the Bible merely reports as matters of historical or biographical fact).

Additionally, the picture's mention of Solomon is instructive. The scattered commentary seems to me to give the impression that Solomon's dalliances go unremarked upon Biblically, or that Solomon was the recipient of unconditional favors, when in fact even a cursory reading of 1 Kings 11 shows clearly that Solomon is remembered as having turned from God and "fallen from grace," as it were. His having had carnal knowledge of roughly 1,000 women is related in the Biblical text to his having done "what was evil in the sight of the Lord" and the fact that he "did not wholly follow the Lord" (1 Kings 11:6).

Moreover, the reference to a woman marrying her husband's brother is misleading, for the command is not issued in the first place to the relevant woman, but to the relevant man (i.e., the deceased husband's brother, or "levir"). The idea was to keep the deceased husband's Promised Land share in the family as well as to provide for the woman (and any female children she may have had). For it would have been probable during some periods, given the socio-cultural realities, that apart from the criticized legal provision, the passing of her husband would have rendered the widow destitute. Furthermore, the reference to "levirate marriage" in Mark 12:18ff is apparently primary historical and is mentioned in the context of a set up for a question, posed to Jesus by the group of religious leaders known as the Sadducees, regarding the general Resurrection (in which the Sadducees disbelieved). In any case, the passage cited by the picture does not set down levirate marriage as a law, it merely quotes Moses to facilitate a sort of academic point. Levirate law is a difficult and obscure matter. It is arguable that such a law was repealed during a later period in Biblical history (as hinted by passages such as Leviticus 20:21, etc.), it is important to bear in mind that the Bible itself places conditions on when the law applies (for the relevant passage begins with "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son..." Deuteronomy 25:5, italics added), and the Bible itself provides for a dispensation (cf.: the passage beginning "However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife..." Loc. Cit., vv.7ff). If anything, concerned readers should present this sort of consideration to adherents of Rabbinic Judaism. Somehow, denouncing Christianity is usually foremost in the minds of Deuteronomical critics, when Christians often hold that many of the civil and ceremonial laws are no longer even binding. It is Rabbinic Judaism, as the heirs of the Pharisaism that Jesus himself criticized, that preserves the tapestry of (what anti-Christians usually consider) tired legalism and, in fact, has labored extensively expanding the casuistry.

Another constellation of difficulties lies in the assertion (as the text stands) that "God frequently blessed polygamists...". For one thing, there is an underlying ambiguity. The statement that:

1. God blessed (presumably, in some specific way, W) Person X, who was a polygamist

is ambiguous between (at the very least):

2. God blessed (presumably, in some specific way, W) Person X BECAUSE he was a polygamist

and:

3. God blessed (presumably, in some specific way, W) Person X DESPITE his being a polygamist

And, in general, God "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). So, one can expect that sinners do frequently (even daily) receive God's blessing. Although this by no means suggests that God sends his blessings because of (let alone as a reward for) a person's sins. It rather seems to indicate that God, in his mercy, routinely blesses people despite their sin, and for the purpose of giving them time and motivation to repent. "He is patient with [us], not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

But admittedly, these are merely scattered criticisms of an already haphazard Facebook polemic. Frankly, it is ultimately unclear what the point of the original picture-post is even supposed to be. For the author simply ends with a sarcastic appeal for "forgiveness" on the basis of his or her lack of "interest" in what he or she has very sloppily termed "Traditional Family Values", despite the author's utter disregard or ignorance of the actual *tradition* that he or she purports to designate.

Therefore, the entire enterprise seems in the end to collapse into a point about the author's psychology. Truly, I have no idea what might "interest" the author. And, with all due respect, I don't care. Although, I think any careful reader, Christian or not, can surmise what does *not* interest the author - beyond the ersatz "Tradition" (which seems more a product of the author's mind than of historical Christianity). Namely, the author also seems uninterested in careful and sober argument, seeming to prefer instead to rely on unsystematic bluster. There is very little of substance in this, and I see no credible threat to the genuine, historical Christian (or even Western) tradition regarding the institution of marriage. I will happily review any careful and relevant argument. In the meantime, I hope Christians (in specific) may then be forgiven by the author for not being much interested in his or her little text-image.

Facebook polemics

Facebook polemics arguably function in a manner akin to a political advertising campaign. Images and slogans are introduced - in lieu of arguments - which images and slogans are apparently designed to elicit cheers from supporters and "boos and hisses" from opponents. The general strategy of the Facebook polemicist is as follows: create a cutesy image overlain with text. The text may be variously abbreviated and sparse - e.g., where the reader sees only a vague, minimalist complaint like "wtf?" - or it may be abbreviated and dense - e.g., as below, where the reader is confronted with a conglomeration of numerous allegations strung end to end.

The benefit (to the polemicist) of minimalism (the former approach) seems chiefly to be that the complaint is left intentionally "fuzzy", which fuzziness allows those sympathetic to the general thrust of the complaint both to fill in details as they see fit, but also to facilitate disdainful posturing towards persons wishing to see a more sharply articulated criticism. The idea here is seemingly to present the criticism as being so obvious (and so obviously correct) that any protest concerning the vagueness of the presentation is the product of either willful blindness or stupidity. 

Alternatively, the primary appeal of the abbreviated-dense approach seems to be to try to psychologically overwhelm any would-be detractor, giving the impression that the mountain of evidence in favor of the (still usually vague) complaint is literally insurmountable.

Here is an example of an abbreviated-dense Facebook polemic:

(Arguably, this particular specimen adopts a composite strategy, with it's minimalist header ("MARRIAGE =") followed by a deluge of additional text. However, I will here ignore the header and treat this exclusively as a species of the latter type - as given, above.)

Here one can see the "density" in terms of the number (given the size of the image) of proper names, common names, and descriptions. And one can see the "abbreviated" nature of the enterprise in terms of the slipshod "citation" effort. (Namely, there was some attempt to provide bible citations for the material deemed relevant by the author. However, this attempt was incomplete or halfhearted in that the author provided no citations at all for one quarter of his or her introduced categories.)

Characteristic of the image-slogan polemic form (and, indeed, arguably characteristic of polemics more broadly), however, is the absence of substantial argument. I presume that the general form is supposed to be (something like): 1) "marriage" equals a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h; 2) a does not equal b; a does not equal c; [with the non-equivalence demonstrated recursively]; 3) therefore, "marriage" cannot equal ab, c, d, e, f, g, and h.

Intuitively, the author seems to want to make the point that "marriage" is a wooly notion. Perhaps, this point can be intelligently pressed. But, the above digital doodle is not a suitable vehicle for this effort.

First, this polemic fails to make one fundamental distinction: reports can be descriptive or prescriptive. It can be truly stated that the Bible accurately reports the (shall we call them) "marital circumstances" of numerous persons. However, in several of the categories depicted (e.g., Genesis 16 regarding "man + woman + woman's property" and "man + woman + woman + woman..."; etc.), these reports are plausibly merely descriptive and do not constitute endorsements of the relevant actions. The Bible describes what these people did. But this does not amount to a Biblical prescription for marriage that is an alternative to the clear prescription in Genesis 2 (|| Matthew 19).

Second, the caption speaks of "illegality". But, number one, at least three of the categories depicted aren't obviously illegal at all. For example, "man + woman", "man + brother's widow", and "rapist + victim" all represent circumstances that are not obviously illegal. (For sure, a rapist is not, in our legal system, required to marry his victim. But, this says nothing about it being illegal for a woman to freely consent to marry a man who had at some past time been convicted of raping her. It is surely highly implausible that such a situation would obtain. But, "implausible" and "illegal" are not synonymous terms.)

Number two, two categories that DO arguably depict illegality (e.g., "male soldier + female prisoner of war" and "male slave + female slave") do so in virtue of depicting actions that run afoul of laws other than marriage laws. That is, the soldier-prisoner example is not illegal because it violates marriage laws; it's illegal, when it is, because it represents violations of the laws of war. Likewise, the male slave-female slave example is illegal because of the 13th Amendment, not (in the first instance) because of a particular marriage law per se.

To summarize, and expand slightly: Three sorts of "marital circumstances" depicted are not illegal at all. Two sorts are illegal but for reasons other than marriage laws. And three sorts of "marital circumstances" are illegal, and are illegal because of marriage laws (they represent cases of polygamy or, maybe, polyandry), but in these cases, the Bible apparently only describes these "marital" arrangements, it does not obviously prescribe them. Hence, even for the uncontroversially maritally-relevant cases, the Bible itself could be rightly said to describe persons and circumstances that violate prescriptions that are set forth elsewhere. In other words, the Bible itself arguably indicts many of the characters that appear in its narratives.

This instance of Facebook polemics will doubtless excite anti-Christians to "hurrays" - or rather "Likes." But, although the author would probably bristle at the idiom, this excitement indicates nothing more substantial than an exercise in what (when Christians are the culprits) would unhesitatingly be called shallow, unconvincing "preaching to the choir."