I confess I abhor Roy Moore and his theocratic leanings far too much to allow myself to easily enjoy the allegations of his scandalous behavior from forty years ago.The sources seem credible (these are not local Democratic activists or Mitch McConnell’s distant relatives), and the only open question seems to be whether Moore will maintain a defiant denial of the allegations as “spiritual warfare” by demons against his holy cause, or throw himself on the mercy of forgiving Christians so as to still be electable to the US Senate. (My vote is for the former; Moore is nothing if not pugnacious and defiant.)
What’s as fascinating to me is the contortions into which dyed-in-the-wool Moore supporters are going to defend his actions.
For example, Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler, who seems to believe that this is all Scripturally sound behavior:
“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”
Let’s leave aside the question of 2000-year old Middle Eastern traditions being used as a rationale for 20th Century skeevery. Let’s even put aside how some conservative Christians use a child marriage by Mohammed to accuse him of pedophilia, but seem quite happy to give Roy (and Joseph) a pass.
The problem with this particular defense is that it’s non-Scriptural.
In the case of Joseph and Mary, there is a strong tradition (and a number of apocryphal sources never accepted into the Biblical canon) that portray Joseph as an adult or even elderly man, vs. Mary being a virgin / young woman. But Joseph’s age is never referred to in the Gospels (he’s never even mentioned in Paul or in the Gospel of Mark, the earliest sources); the tradition seems to have arisen because by the time Jesus is doing his preaching thing, Joseph is gone from the picture, Mary apparently widowed (if not divorced or abandoned; she is simply alone in the world).
Rather than chalking up Joseph’s death as premature, due to a nasty carpentry accident or a plague or something, the early writers simply assumed / asserted that Joseph naturally lived out the course of his life, just advanced by a few decades from Mary’s.
But that’s not actually in the Gospels, any more than the names of the Three Wise Men are (or that there even were three of them).
The Zachariah / Elizabeth thing is even sketchier. The relative different of age of the two are never given in the sole Gospel account they are mentioned in, Luke ch. 1, only that both of them are very old. Any other assertions are non-Scriptural tradition.
I’m not claiming those particular traditions are wrong (or that they are right), merely that they are non-Biblical. Which makes using them by devout Baptists as a defense of Roy Moore more than a little bit weird.
What the actual f*ck? I say he should sacrifice his first born son to make up for this offence.
Also, uh… unless I'm seriously misremembering… Joseph never had sex with Mary, and he wasn't the biological father of Jesus.
+Colm Buckley Per Scripture he wasn't the biological father of Jesus (how that worked genetically is not addressed). The issue of whether he never had sex with her and she remained perpetually a virgin is a doctrinal one, not addressed in Scripture.
Using biblical references for defense is reprehensible but to ignorantly falsify the references to support someone who may have committed sexual assault today…
Ahem… the Bible has always been clear on who fathered Jesus. Not Joseph.
There’s also the little issue of them being married.
Basically, you can destroy this argument from every thinkable direction.
But it’s hardly the stupidest argument being made. There’s the “all of them were technically legal but one” argument, and the “but he was romantic” argument.
What I find odd is how few people seem to be saying “he would never do that”. But maybe they just aren’t getting press.
+Kee Hinckley Oh, I didn't think it was the stupidest argument, just an argument that falls apart on its own premises.
The "why didn't they come forward sooner" argument is just as silly, given the long record of such late confessions / accusations that have proven to be true (and, sometimes, confessed to by the accused).
None of this is to say that the accusations are, in fact, true (though, again, the people involved don't seem to be likely agents provocateurs), but the arguments against them are mostly froth, or worse.
+Dave Hill +Colm Buckley Matthew 1:25 ESV "but knew her not UNTIL she had given birth to a son" (EMPHASIS mine). This implies to me that they did have sex after Jesus' birth (which implies that James et al were children of Joseph and Mary).
Of course, the application of Joseph and Mary to Roy Moore makes no sense for another reason – Moore is not accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with any of the girls.
+John E. Bredehoft Playing devil's advocate, I might suggest that the "until" phrase is more to establish proof that Mary was a virgin when she conceived than an implication of sexuality afterwards. But since I agree with you, that would be silly.
While Moore is not accused of having sex with any of the teens involved, I think the idea is a conflation of May/December relationships of any sort (or perhaps more like March/December). I.e., if The Bible says it's okay for old white-haired Joseph to be betrothed to virginal Mary, then there's nothing wrong with a 32yo prosecutor sexually / romantically approaching a 14yo (or 16yo, either).
One might think that these defenders would be less jiggy with the situation if it were their 14yo daughters … but perhaps not.
Perhaps not. I remember that the parent of one of the teens thought that Moore would be a good catch.
+John E. Bredehoft True. I was more than a bit dismayed by that particular comment, on a variety of levels.
So let me put it this way — if a 32yo started sniffing around my child that way, at 14 or at 17, I'd have had less enthusiastic commentary.