Critiquing: #061 — Could Jesus have been female? What about polygamy?

April 15, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Polygamy in the Bible — Gender roles in the church — Jesus’s incarnation — Complementarianism — Biblical interpretation

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	The episode presents a blend of accurate biblical references and interpretations. However, some theological assertions, such as the necessity of Jesus’s gender, are not universally agreed upon and lack historical-critical examination.
Degree of Coherence	B	The arguments are logically presented and generally flow well. However, the episode could benefit from clearer connections between theological points and historical context.
Absence of Fallacies	C-	There are instances of potential straw man fallacies, especially when addressing opposing viewpoints on gender roles and polygamy. Additionally, some arguments may involve the fallacy of appealing to tradition.
Degree of Evidence	C	The discussion relies heavily on scriptural references, which, while important, are interpreted through specific theological lenses. The episode lacks external historical and cultural evidence to support broader claims.
Degree of Testability	D+	Many claims, particularly those related to theological doctrines, are difficult to test or verify empirically, limiting their practical applicability.
Rational Confidence	C	Confidence in the claims is moderate, aligning with the scriptural basis but lacking broader evidence from historical or empirical research.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Absence of Fallacies:

“Jesus is saying all along throughout the Old Testament you have been allowed to do various things because you were hard-hearted and this was inevitable.”

This statement could be seen as a straw man fallacy, oversimplifying opposing arguments about Old Testament laws and their interpretations. It implies that those who reference Old Testament allowances are merely justifying hard-hearted behavior, without acknowledging the complex cultural, legal, and moral contexts of those laws. Additionally, this overlooks the rich tradition of rabbinic debate and interpretation that surrounds these texts.

2. Degree of Testability:

“Jesus’s response goes like this. Yes Moses gave you the command that you could divorce your wife but from the beginning it was not so.”

This theological claim is rooted in scripture, but lacks empirical testability, making it difficult to evaluate objectively. The assertion that Jesus’s teaching restores an original creational intent is a theological interpretation that cannot be empirically verified. It is important to distinguish between theological assertions and claims that can be tested through historical or social scientific methods.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Jesus’s Incarnation and Gender

Premises:

1. If God chose to incarnate as a human, God could choose any gender.
2. Jesus incarnated as a male in a specific cultural and historical context.
3. The incarnation of Jesus as a male had theological and cultural significance.

Hidden Premise:

• The cultural context required a male incarnation for Jesus to fulfill his mission effectively.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, Jesus’s incarnation as a male was both theologically necessary and culturally appropriate.

Counter-Argument:
The necessity of Jesus’s incarnation as a male can be challenged by questioning the hidden premise. While the cultural context of first-century Judea might have favored male leadership, it does not strictly necessitate that the incarnation had to be male. God, being omnipotent, could have chosen to incarnate in any form and still accomplish the divine mission. Additionally, considering the radical nature of Jesus’s ministry, which often subverted societal norms (e.g., his interactions with women, tax collectors, and other marginalized individuals), an incarnation as a female could have also served to challenge and transform the prevailing cultural norms. The theological significance attached to Jesus’s gender might be more a reflection of patriarchal interpretations rather than an absolute necessity. The discussion would benefit from engaging with feminist theological perspectives that explore the implications of a non-male incarnation.

---

Argument 2: Polygamy in the Bible

Premises:

1. Polygamy is depicted in several Old Testament narratives.
2. Biblical figures like Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon had multiple wives.
3. Jesus affirmed monogamy in his teachings.

Hidden Premise:

• The progression from Old Testament practices to New Testament teachings represents a moral evolution towards monogamy.

Conclusion:

• Therefore, despite its occurrence in the Old Testament, polygamy is not endorsed as a practice in Christian teaching.

Counter-Argument:
While it is true that polygamy appears in Old Testament narratives, the argument that it is not endorsed in Christian teaching relies heavily on interpreting Jesus’s affirmation of monogamy as a universal standard. However, this view might ignore the socio-cultural contexts in which polygamy was practiced and the varied interpretations of marital norms. For instance, in the Ancient Near Eastern context, polygamy often served practical and socio-economic purposes, such as securing alliances and ensuring the survival of family lines. Furthermore, the lack of explicit condemnation of polygamy in the New Testament suggests a more nuanced stance that requires contextual and historical analysis rather than a straightforward moral evolution narrative. By examining the broader biblical canon and historical practices, one can argue that the shift towards monogamy in Christian teaching is more a reflection of changing cultural norms rather than an inherent biblical mandate. Additionally, this counter-argument invites a re-examination of how modern Christian ethics should engage with and interpret ancient practices in light of contemporary understandings of justice and equality.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

The Incoherence of Theistic Moral Evolution in Scriptures

The notion that theistic morality evolved throughout the Scriptures is incoherent. This perspective contends that divine moral injunctions changed progressively in response to evolving cultural contexts. However, a close examination of the Old Testament reveals numerous instances where God’s commands were absolute and unmitigated, without regard for the cultural practices of the time.

For example, God decreed severe punishments for those who broke the Sabbath. In Exodus 31:14, the penalty for working on the Sabbath was death:

“You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”

This command is stark and uncompromising, illustrating a moral directive that did not consider potential mitigating cultural or personal circumstances.

Similarly, in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, God commanded parents to stone rebellious children:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Such a commandment lacks any semblance of moral evolution or sensitivity to individual circumstances, reflecting an absolute moral standard imposed by divine authority.

Other examples of unmitigated commands include Leviticus 20:13, which calls for the death penalty for homosexual acts:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Similarly, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 prescribes the death penalty for adultery:

“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

These examples illustrate that the moral directives in the Old Testament were often rigid and absolute, with no apparent consideration for cultural evolution or contextual factors. This rigidity calls into question the idea that theistic morality evolved progressively.

Furthermore, if we accept the biblical premise that each generation starts with reprobate minds, as suggested in Romans 1:28:

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done,”

then why would morality need to evolve over generations? If each generation is inherently morally corrupt, then any notion of moral progression becomes logically inconsistent. Instead, it would imply a need for an unchanging and absolute moral standard to counteract the inherent moral deficiencies of each generation.

Christians typically do not argue that human moral intuitions evolve correctly over generations. Rather, they often assert that human morality needs divine revelation to guide it properly. If something is inherently wrong and deserving of eternal punishment, as many theistic doctrines assert, then it stands to reason that it would be wrong enough to warrant immediate and uncompromising prohibition, rather than a gradual adaptation to cultural contexts. The idea of hoping for a better cultural context to enforce moral laws more effectively undermines the very concept of an absolute moral standard.

Thus, the argument that theistic morality evolved throughout the Scriptures is fundamentally incoherent. The absolute nature of many Old Testament commands, the inherent moral corruption of each generation, and the need for unchanging divine moral guidance all point to the necessity of a consistent and absolute moral framework that transcends cultural and generational changes. Additionally, the fact that polygamy was accepted by God in the past brings under suspicion the notion that there is a coherent moral framework presented in the Bible. If polygamy was once permissible but is now considered immoral, it challenges the idea of a consistent and timeless moral standard within the biblical text.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your insights and perspectives are invaluable to a deeper understanding of this complex issue.