It is interesting, and also very frustrating, to read how people justify actions. This seems to be the most posh argument that people use nowadays, “Jesus didn’t talk about it, so it must not be important.” The people who make this argument seem to use it as a magic wand to wave away people calling certain actions sin. This is the one of the most horrible arguments, ever. The people who use this argument the most are the people who say that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable behavior. However, when this argument is used to justify that behavior, what other behaviors are being justified at the same time? They also manage to create a rift in the Bible between what Jesus says and what everyone else says. Lastly this thinking degrades scripture to only mean what a person wants it to mean and fails to recognize the cohesiveness of all scripture.
People fail to realize the types of things Jesus never talked about. While they know the things he did not talk about that justified their own behavior, or behavior they believe is proper, they fail to see what else Jesus never mentions. As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. They justify this by saying that Jesus never calls it sin and the only other time it is mentioned is in Leviticus, which is not true, in a section called purity laws. Leviticus has been abrogated, therefore homosexuality is OK. What other behavior is justified by the same reasoning? There is an easy answer to this. It is also mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus, however no one seems to want to justify this behavior. The behavior is incest. Does Jesus ever mention it? No. It is in the same chapters of Leviticus that homosexuality is mentioned that being Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. However it is unlikely you will find incest pride parades on weekends or find churches hiring ministers that are actively involved in a sexual relationship with their sister. Clearly most “higher thinking” Christians would object to incest but accept homosexuality. Usually their reasoning is how Jesus never talked about it.
This thinking also creates a rift in scripture between what Jesus says and what the rest of the Bible says. First what would the Bible say about itself here. 2 Timothy 3:16 says how ALL scripture is inspired by God. So anything in the Bible is the word of God. Many times in the Bible when it reads “scripture says” it is equated with “God says”. So scripture, no matter who it was written by, can be equated with being the word of God. Jesus himself claimed to be God, John 10:30. So, if scripture is the Word of God, everything that is written, and Jesus is God, one could say that when Paul writes in Romans 1 about men and women giving up natural relations it is something that Jesus would have been in full agreement with and would have said himself.
Lastly, people who only want to believe what Jesus said directly in the Gospels fail to realize the importance of all scripture and only wish to believe certain parts of scripture. This part may be the most troubling. This is where people can be misled and completely led away from God. One can make scripture say whatever they want it to say if it is not taken as a whole. While this debate could rage on with possibilities about who is actually being misled and who is doing the misleading, once again the example should be taken from scripture to when scripture can be used to try and lead people astray. In Matthew 4 Jesus is tempted by the Devil himself. First Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus answered with scripture saying “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3. Next Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Jesus to throw himself off telling him, as Psalm 91:11-12 says, that Angels will protect him. Here Satan is making an argument from scripture. Odd how the Devil is saying, “See what scripture says.” It says this is good. Act in this way. Its OK. God wants you to. Jesus, knowing the totality of scripture, responds with scripture saying “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test,’” Deuteronomy 6:16. Lastly Jesus is tempted to worship Satan and once again Jesus uses scripture and says “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only,’” Deuteronomy 6:13. Once again Jesus fends off temptation with scripture. The most intriguing part of this passage is when Satan uses scripture as a justification for wrong action. However Jesus, knowing all scripture, was able to know how to correctly behave. He knew what every passage meant and knew how it all worked together. So when he was tempted by a bad argument based in the word of God, he was able to do what was right. All of scripture in its totality speaks on how one should act, not just a small portion.
The “Jesus never said it” fallacy is a mere justification for sin. It justifies wrong actions with a thin veil that appears to be from God. It makes most scripture to be nothing more than the words of man. It denies that all scripture is from God. It perverts scripture to be whatever one wants it to be instead of being totally the inspired word of God which is to show everyone who God is and what He requires.
11 Comments
You are starting with several basic assumptions that really must be critically examined. What do you consider “scripture”? Is it just whatever is in your protestant Bible? Why so?
The word translated as “scripture” in the NT is the greek word “graphae,” which quite simply means “writing,” or “text.” Now, is the writing of 2 Timothy saying that all writings are “God breathed”? I’d say that’s a fairy problematic proposition.
One must ask themself what the writer of 2 Timothy would have been refering to. Since we really can’t reliably date the letter, that’s a difficult proposition. But, even you speak of Jesus’ knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew Bible. You keep speaking about using “all of scripture,” yet we modern protestant Christians don’t use all of what the early church would have considered “scripture.” They would have been using the septuagint as one of their main source-texts, and that contained quite a few extra books than I imagine the bible(s) you or I typically use. Furthermore, there are moments where books like Jude contain quotes of books like Enoch with definite authority. Early Christian views on what texts were authoritative are quite diverse, and it took a few hundred years before the canon was for some reason magically closed.
So, your heartfelt appeal to “all scripture” is quite problematic all things considered. On top of that, what does the author of 2 Timothy truly mean by “God breathed”? Does in mean “inspired” in the way we modern 21st Century Christians use the term, or did it mean something else?
I’m with you on reading all of the Bible, taking the whole of scripture seriously…but I’m pretty sure with different results. For instance, to 100% equate things that Paul said and things that Jesus said is to miss the internal tensions that exist within the Bible. One cannot read the Bible as a whole and honestly say there are no “contradictions.” Heck, one can’t even read the first three chapters of the book of Genesis without finding direct conflicts. Fact is, authorship plays a role in the books we have in our Bible, and it shows in their different perspectives of time, their different views on God, and their different interpretations of the same events/texts. We Christians really need to own up to what the Bible really says, and be honest about it’s contents. We also must understand that ancient peoples’ understandings of things like scripture, inspiration, the divine, the progession of time, and much else are likely quite different from our own. For if we can’t take our own holy text seriously enough to be honest about them, then how can we expect non-Christians to take us seriously?
I know I haven’t spoken to your main point, but I felt it quite necessary to point out some issues that exist in the suppositions you make to get to your point. Obviously, in most instances arguments from silence are pretty week, and we should certainly be weary of such things. But, we shouldn’t cover up one intellectual dishonesty with another. We do need to come to better understandings of the whole of scripture, but we must do so recognizing the true nature of the texts and understanding their internal and external tensions.
dang… ham beat me to it.
for the record, I agree that just saying "Jesus didn’t talk about it" is not a good argument, but I also agree with ham that your post overly-simplifies reading the Scriptures and the doctrine of inspiration… no Christian reads all parts of Scripture equally (do you have indoor plumbing? Leviticus says you shouldn’t.)
Great post Andrew, this is an often used fallacy and needs to be debunked. No complaints from me.
Andrew,
Great timing. My wife was just asking me about these verses. I guess it was on some TV show where they mentioned Leviticus, Homosexuality and Eating Shrimp. Your example of Incest settles the issue. I’ll remember it.
I like Ham’s analysis of your post. He raises some really interesting issues. Inerrancy and Infallibility are of great interest to me so - Ham - consider more of the same! This is a great topic.
p.s. I hope I can call you Ham… ?
-Edgar
Who are these people? I don’t recall ever seeing this as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality, at least not by any serious thinkers about the issue.
dave i think you’re right…
I’ve never seen a serious scholar use this argument. however, this is a fairly popular argument in the realm of popular debate. not to sound all elitest, but there it is… I’ve heard this argument used in several "coffee-shoppe" discussions of various issues.
A couple of thoughts -
Andy - I think that you do identify something that all would to well to keep in mind, that arguments from silence are bad arguments. Many Christians and scholars have used this to their own detriment, conservative and liberal alike.
Ham - You make good points, the canon is a contested category. Andy and others are arguing from a certain canon and a specific interpretation of their canon. The context of 2nd Tim seems to indicate the writings are sacred writings. The sacred writings of Andy and those that agree with him are the the writings of the protestant canon. Again, while there are literal contradictions and tensions, ( and the first step of a biblical interpretation is to acknowledge these tensions) a final interpretation of the Bible includes a dealing with these contradictions and tensions. Andy and the others are operating from this final stage, where the contradictions have been dealt with. (such as giving primacy to the New Testament over the Old, etc).
Who says that we have to, in our final evaluation, mimic the views of the ancients? I would agree that we should know and take them into account as we work through the issues, but I know of no reason that suggests we should mimic their ideas and world views.
“As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior.
Who are these people? I don’t recall ever seeing this as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality, at least not by any serious thinkers about the issue.
If you haven’t seen this sort of logic (if it can be called that) invoked I’d say you need to read more books by pro-gay “Christians”. John Shelby Spong’s books come to mind, I know for a fact that he uses this reasoning and have called him on it in my review of his “Why Christianity Must Change of Die”.
how does the fact that incest is still regarded as sinful lend itself to an uncategorical acceptance of homosexuality being sin… but not shrimp-eating? or pig-eating? or having a sore with white hairs?
i think the discussion about leviticus is not as challenging or compelling as considering NT verses, like romans 1 for instance.
i’m totally with cheapham on the scripture question. good work.
Just read (or at least skimmed) through most of your review of the book, and didn’t see this reasoning mentioned once.
Having read the book several years ago, I don’t recall if Spong used this reasoning. But I don’t see you mentioning this reasoning at all in your review.
I have read many books/articles from “pro-gay Christians” and have not found this to be a pervasive argument anywhere. While it may be mentioned at times, it is definitely not foundational to any argument that I have seen.
Those who make an argument (at least those who make serious arguments) for the acceptance of homosexuality actually wrestle with the text and the cultural context it is coming from.