To some readers (likely not the kind associated with mainstream evangelicalism, who are inept at recognizing nuance), Deuteronomy 25:9-10 might seem to subtly challenge the condemnation of degrading treatment in the first three verses of the chapter. Shortly after Deuteronomy 25:3 opposes any corporal punishment that exceeds 40 lashes because it would degrade or, as some translations put it, humiliate the recipient, verses 5-10 detail a procedure for handling a man who chooses not to marry his brother's widow in ancient Jewish society, as was encouraged in verses 5-6. The man who consistently refused to marry his brother's widow was to go before the elders, where the widow would remove one of his sandals, publicly spit in his face, and pronounce his line "The Family of the Unsandaled."
Degrading or humiliating someone through physical abuse is a vile injustice that is inherently different from socially humiliating someone in an arbitrary ritual that does not harm anyone physically or spiritually (in the sense that social perception does not determine the status of one's relationship with God), of course. Maliciously flogging a person with more than 40 lashes for a crime and spitting in their face before publicly, formally saying "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line" (Deuteronomy 25:9) may seem to have little in common, but both involve at least some element of a desire to disgrace the person on the receiving end.
The difference behind the Biblical morality of these two acts is clear: the first is unjust physical torture and the second is merely a potentially humiliating ritual socially acknowledging someone's unwillingness to continue a sibling's family line. Many Christians who contemplate or discuss issues of harshness and justice have it backwards. They oppose even relatively mild forms of social humiliation in the name of arbitrarily defined love and treat unbiblical forms of torture as if they are either morally permissible under certain circumstances or as if the ultimate Biblical morality of such torture is vague, a matter left to the state to decide.
It is a grievous offense against God and fellow humans to endorse or practice any torture that goes beyond the Bible's allowance of up to 40 lashes and a small handful of permitted physical injuries (like the partial amputation of limbs), but humiliating someone by means such as social ostracism or Deuteronomy 25:10's spitting in a person's face is not inherently unjust or cruel by Biblical standards. Thus, it is asinine to object to measures like social humiliation in themselves on the grounds that the Bible instructs people to be loving. The same God who commands people to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18) allows spitting in someone's face in some situations.
The examples of corporal punishment and the manner of dealing with those who became known as "the Unsandaled" both clarify different aspects of Biblical morality. Treatment of others that may result in subjective feelings of humiliation are not sinful by default because not all humiliation of others, intentional or intentional, is unjust. This is why Deuteronomy 25:1-3 and 25:5-10 are not in conflict. The former condemns abusive criminal punishments by prescribing fixed limitations, while the latter prescribes a form of social shaming, thereby clarifying that social shaming can be morally legitimate. The difference lies in the reason for the humiliation and the fact that one results from a physical action and the other from a social procedure.
No comments:
Post a Comment