![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/55\/2024\/10\/61vBp28374L._AC_UY436_FMwebp_QL65_.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPART FOUR:\u00a0 THE TREATMENT OF THE NT\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Let it first be said that Richard\u2019s treatment of the Gospels does indeed place the emphasis in the right place in terms of God\u2019s mercy and compassion as expressed in Christ\u2019s various teachings and healings and acts of fellowship.\u00a0 The problem with these chapters is the important topics they fail<\/em> to address.\u00a0 Examples are Christ\u2019s views on marriage, sexual sin, the eternal consequences for rejecting the Good News, and Christ\u2019s call of sinners to repentance in light of the coming Kingdom of God (see e.g. Mark 1.15 as a summary of his message).<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n We must have a concept of progressive revelation, namely that Jesus and his teaching and actions and character are the clearest revelation of God\u2019s character.\u00a0 If so, there are points at which, when Jesus says something definitive on these relevant matters or even if one of his apostles like Paul does so, we must take these teachings very seriously as the clearest and furthest revelation of the character of a God.\u00a0 God is righteous, and holy, and just.\u00a0 He is also called Love in 1 John 4, and is light, life, compassionate, merciful and more.\u00a0\u00a0 It is right to put an emphasis on the nouns like love, bearing in mind that we are not talking about eros <\/em>but rather agape<\/em>, God\u2019s holy and gracious love.\u00a0 So, it is in order to point out that while the Hays\u2019 book basically does not address the issue of marriage (which is odd), Jesus has something very clear to say to his disciples about this matter when the question is asked about why Moses permitted divorce. The importance of this passage is so great, that we must give it some detailed attention.\u00a0 Here is a translation of Matthew 19, bearing in mind that the Mark 10 account of this same teaching says Jesus said, \u201cno divorce\u201d.<\/p>\n 3\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, \u201cIs it lawful for a man to divorce his wife\u202ffor any and every reason?\u201d<\/p>\n 4\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>\u201cHaven\u2019t you read,\u201d\u202fhe replied,\u202f\u201cthat at the beginning the Creator \u2018made them male and female,\u2019[<\/sup>a<\/sup><\/a>]<\/sup>\u202f5\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>and said, \u2018For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh\u2019[<\/sup>b<\/sup><\/a>]<\/sup>?\u202f6\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.\u201d<\/p>\n 7\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>\u201cWhy then,\u201d they asked, \u201cdid Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?\u201d<\/p>\n 8\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>Jesus replied,\u202f\u201cMoses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.\u202f9\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.\u201d<\/p>\n 10\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>The disciples said to him, \u201cIf this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.\u201d<\/p>\n 11\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>Jesus replied,\u202f\u201cNot everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.\u202f12\u202f<\/sup><\/strong>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others\u2014and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.\u201d<\/p>\n First of all, notice that Jesus only endorses heterosexual monogamy, and he does so on the basis of his understanding of the original creation order design of God.\u00a0 God made us male and female for each other.\u00a0 Only males and females could share a one flesh union that could lead to the fulfillment of God\u2019s plan that they be fruitful and multiply.\u00a0 Jesus is citing Gen. 1.27 and then 2.24.\u00a0\u00a0 The only alternative he offers his own disciples is celibacy in singleness, using the language of being like a eunuch.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n What about the exception clause, found both here and in Mt. 5.32.\u00a0 The word used in the exception clause is porneia<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 A porne <\/em>was a prostitute (hence the English term pornography), and so the noun could mean except on grounds of prostitution.\u00a0\u00a0 But the other singular meaning is incest\u2014except on grounds of incest, like the case of Herod Antipas with his brother\u2019s wife.\u00a0 One could see Jesus commenting on that since John the Baptizer also did.\u00a0\u00a0 The other meaning of porneia<\/em> is any and all sorts of sexual immorality.\u00a0 But this is unlikely to be the meaning in this passage since the disciples rightly discern that Jesus is being stricter<\/em> than Moses on this issue and throw up their hands saying if this is the case, then better for a man not to marry.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n What is equally important is to notice Jesus\u2019 comment on Moses\u2019 permission of divorce.\u00a0 We are told that God allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts<\/em>.\u00a0 And here we have a window on Jesus\u2019 own hermeneutic.\u00a0 He thinks that various of the OT laws were given because of the spiritual state of God\u2019s people at that point.\u00a0\u00a0 But now Jesus and the eschatological age has come, therefore, new occasions can bring forth new teaching.\u00a0 This new teaching is not progressive in the modern since of progressing beyond the OT teaching in ways that negate ethical rigor.\u00a0\u00a0 To the contrary, Jesus is more demanding in his sexual ethic than the OT, not only basically ruling out divorce (and remarriage in Mark 10.11) for those \u2018whom God has joined together\u2019, but he also intensifies the demand in regard to adultery, to include adulterous thoughts (see Matthew 5).\u00a0 Jesus is taking away the male privilege of divorce in his Jewish setting which, as a result, gave women more security in marriage.\u00a0 But he is also allowing that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not required <\/em>of all his followers \u2013 they can be single for the sake of the kingdom.\u00a0 You will not find a discussion of this anywhere in The Widening of God\u2019s Mercy<\/em>.\u00a0 What Jesus does not say is that his disciples should be allowed to find other sorts of marriage arrangements other than the one God intended at creation of humankind as male and female.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Another subject that could have used a careful discussion in this book is covenants.\u00a0 Covenants in the OT, such as the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and then the New Covenant announced by Jeremiah 31 and enacted by Jesus and his followers, are arrangements set up by God between God and his people.\u00a0 That there are limits to who is included in the saved category should be clear from Jesus\u2019 sayings about people going to Gehenna, or his parable of the rich man and Lazarus, or his saying about the narrow gate, or his parable about the sheep and the goats.\u00a0 Neither Jesus nor his apostles and early followers thought that the Gospel was some form of universalism.\u00a0 As Paul says repeatedly, salvation is by grace through faith in Christ crucified and risen.\u00a0 While Christ has atoned for the sins of the world through his death, and is the objective means of human salvation, the subjective means is by trusting in Christ, being born again, and being baptized by the Spirit into the new covenant community.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Thus, when we see that the New Covenant doesn\u2019t require sabbath observance of Jesus\u2019 followers this is not a sign of a change of mind or incipient universalism.\u00a0 Rather,\u00a0 it\u2019s a sign that the covenant has changed, and includes some of the same commandments as found in the Mosaic Law, but many new ones as well.\u00a0 Such is the nature of contracts between God and his people; they differ according to the point in time in salvation history they are covering.\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus is not merely an advocate of a more enlightened reading of the OT, though that is true.\u00a0 He is also offering teachings that go well beyond and sometimes against some of the materials in the OT.\u00a0 This is true because he perceives the eschatological saving reign of God is breaking in, and the new occasion require a New Covenant, with many new commandments.\u00a0 This is not only for God\u2019s Jewish people, but also for non-Jews, as would become clearer later.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Understandably, the term mercy comes up again and again in Richard\u2019s treatment of Jesus\u2019 teaching.\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus does emphasize mercy, but what is mercy?\u00a0 Mercy is what a sinner needs and gets when he or she is not punished according to strict justice.\u00a0 Mercy is not the same thing as grace.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n It is interesting that Richard points to the word hesed <\/span>which he translates as steadfast love.\u00a0 It is interesting because that very word <\/span>hesed <\/span>is universally translated in the LXX as <\/span>mercy,<\/span> not as steadfast love, or loving kindness.\u00a0 Of course, the NT is in Greek and its authors use the LXX more than any other version of the OT.\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus is perfectly well aware that tax collectors and \u2018sinners\u2019 are indeed in need of repentance (which E.P. Sanders says means \u2018notorious sinners\u2019).\u00a0 Note the parable of the tax collector pleading for mercy, while the Pharisee lifts himself up by comparing himself to the IRS agent.\u00a0\u00a0 In the story of Zaccheus, we see this need for and response of repentance clearly.\u00a0 It is no accident that Jesus says salvation has come to his house on that day.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Note that Richard follows Chris\u2019 lead and suggests that Hosea 11 shows God changing his mind to have mercy instead of judging (p. 138).\u00a0 This is not an accurate reading of the whole passage.\u00a0 God is depicted as debating with himself what he will do, and in the end concludes, because he is God and not quixotic likes humans, that he will not change his mind about his original love and mercy for his people.\u00a0 God will be faithful to his promises even when Israel is faithless.\u00a0 It is right to place the emphasis on Christ\u2019s compassion and mercy, but not at the expense of what he says about eternal consequences for rejecting his Good News message.\u00a0 Jesus says far more about people going to Gehenna or outer darkness than any other speaker in the NT with the exception of John of Patmos.\u00a0 It is important not to neglect the justice and righteousness of God which is a theme throughout the Bible.\u00a0\u00a0 Justice and righteousness ironically become an expression of love, through the substituting of God\u2019s Son to be the atonement for our sins.\u00a0 It should have been us on the cross but, as Paul says, the God of righteousness could not pass over sin forever and remain the person who God is\u2014a God of holy love, not holiness without love, and not love without holiness.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In his dealing with the book of Acts, most of the exegesis is fine until one gets to the Decree of the Jerusalem Council which is definitely not about a creative re-reading of Leviticus.\u00a0 For one thing there is no mention of the prohibition of \u2018things strangled\u2019 in Leviticus at all.\u00a0 This is actually a clue to the social setting James has in mind, namely idol feasts in pagan temples.\u00a0 Pagans did indeed strangle birds so the life breath would enter into the statue of the god, and thereby invigorate or feed the deity.\u00a0 Furthermore, eidolothuton refers to meat sacrificed to an idol which would be followed by a feast in which the idol or god would be the host.\u00a0 If one asks the right question as to where a Jew would assume one could find all four things prohibited in the decree (eidolothuton, blood, things strangled, and porneia) all in one place, including sexual immorality, it would be in a pagan idol feast in a temple\u2019s dining room. After too much wine there would regularly be sexual, immoral behavior with the servants.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In short, the decree is about venue, not about a Levitical menu.\u00a0 Paul implements the decree in 1 Corinthians 8-10 where he prohibits attending idol feasts in temple dining rooms.\u00a0 Indeed, he says there is no problem with eating anything one finds in the meat market, including animals sacrificed in a pagan temple.\u00a0 Again, the issue is venue and where one finds those four prohibited things together, not menu.\u00a0\u00a0 Finally, the reason James reminds the Gentiles about the heart of the Mosaic law, namely the Ten Commandments, is because at its core it is a prohibition of idolatry and immorality, including porneia.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n So, if one wants to take the Jerusalem Council example as a paradigm for how to deal with the \u2018presenting\u2019 issue in regard to same sex, sexual expression, James\u2019 answer would be God\u2019s Word prohibits it!\u00a0 And so does the teaching of the Apostle to the Gentiles in Romans and 1 Corinthians.\u00a0\u00a0 One must reject the idea of an analogy between inclusion of various non-Jewish ethnic groups into the covenant community, something all along hinted at in the mission of the chosen people to be a light to the nations.\u00a0 This has nothing to do with accepting sexual practices which are clearly at odds with specific statements in both the Mosaic law and the New Covenant teachings.\u00a0 Again, the Holy Spirit\u2019s leading us into a deeper understanding of the Scriptures does not include leading us to contradict the clear teaching of Scripture on some important theological or ethical matter.\u00a0 If the decree of James suggests anything, it suggests that in the new covenant community the sexual ethical standards will still be as demanding as in the Mosaic law, if not more so.\u00a0 There is no trajectory of change on that issue in Scripture. Indeed, Jesus and Paul call us to a higher standard of ethical rectitude including in regard to the form of marriage they endorse.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Richard\u2019s treatment of the Pauline letters rightly emphasizes the theme of mercy and love, while deliberately avoiding saying anything about the Pauline texts (e.g. Rom. 1.18-32; 1 Cor. 6.9) that clearly enough condemn same sex relationships.\u00a0 As it turns out, and we learn in the final chapter about \u2018Moral Re-Envisioning\u2019, this was part of the deliberate strategy of this whole book.\u00a0 The strategy was to NOT deal with the OT and NT texts that do indeed teach that the various behaviors being touted as normal by the LGBTQ+ are either explicitly or implicitly ruled out by these texts and also the ones that say that God\u2019s intent is for heterosexual monogamy when it comes to marriage, a teaching Jesus himself insists on.\u00a0 And once more with feeling, it is quite false to say that what was being condemned in the Bible is NOT same sex relations between consenting adults.\u00a0 There are various ancient examples of that from Jesus and Paul\u2019s world, so that claim needs to be dropped, as Preston Sprinkle and others have shown (see the blog post of Oct. 12<\/span>th <\/sup>on this blog).\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There is a further attempt by Richard at an analogy between the discussion of the weak and the strong in Romans 14.\u00a0 Richard rightly suggests that these passages probably refer to Jewish Christians, who have too many scruples about the food they eat and the day they worship God, versus the Gentiles who have no such scruples.\u00a0 Clearly, Paul identifies with the strong, but wishes to protect the weak as also is the case in 1 Corinthians.\u00a0\u00a0 But the attempt to then suggest that today the strong are those who have abandoned scruples about same sex sexual behavior (and related LGBTQ+ advocated behaviors), whereas the weak are those who maintain the teaching that the Bible explicitly gives on such behaviors, is far-fetched.\u00a0\u00a0 One could just as easily turn this argument on its head.\u00a0 The weak are those who have capitulated to the siren song of our pagan culture about sexual behaviors the Bible does not condone.\u00a0 The strong are those who have remained faithful to the Biblical teaching against the general flow of the American culture.\u00a0 In the end, the attempt at analogies using either Acts 15 or Romans 14 and situations today are strained at best, and frankly unconvincing.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the final chapter it is argued that what is said in the OT and NT about slaves and slavery is something the church now deems wrong and not to be followed despite what is said in the Bible.\u00a0 The problem with this judgment is it fails to realize that the Biblical dictates and statements about slavery which is a practice, like patriarchy, that is a result of human fallenness and sin, are all attempts to limit an existing and ongoing evil not license it!\u00a0\u00a0 Despite the fact that various people over the last 2,000 years thought it provided a warrant for enslaving people, this was not the intent of what was being taught.\u00a0 For instance, in the household codes in Colossians 3-4 and Ephesians 5-6, Paul must start with a situation that already is in place and exists in the household of new high status Christians with slaves.\u00a0 And, like any good pastor, he must start with them where they are, but not leave them there.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Notice the trajectory of change from Colossians where there is a remark about equality between masters and slaves (isotes), to Ephesians where we hear that masters are to serve their slaves and treat them with respect, and finally to Philemon where we see where this trajectory of change is going.\u00a0 The trajectory is moving to \u2018manumission\u2019 because Onesimus must be seen by his owner, the Christian Philemon, as \u2018no longer a slave, but rather a brother in Christ\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 Paul already said in Gal. 3.28 that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, and no male and female.\u00a0\u00a0 Amen to that.\u00a0 What he did not say or even remotely suggest is that the Biblical standards of sexual morality should be changed to meet the preferences of a pagan culture.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0I take it for granted that we are to love and welcome everyone into the Church.\u00a0 This does not mean that we are to accept all their ideas, beliefs, and behaviors. They can come as they are, but no one should ever expect to stay as they are when they are encountering Christ and the Spirit in the gathering of the church for worship and fellowship and discipleship.\u00a0 To the contrary, everyone, being sinners, should expect to be changed by being part of the body of Christ.\u00a0 What the church should never do is baptize people\u2019s sins, of whatever sort, and call it good and acceptable behavior.\u00a0 What actually does the most harm is treating sin and its consequences as if it isn\u2019t sin and has no serious consequences.\u00a0 The message of the Church today should be the same today for the sexual sinner as Jesus articulated in his own day, that is, a message which balances mercy and righteousness.\u00a0 \u201cNeither do I condemn you but go and sin no more.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 If the church did an adequate job of making clear that single persons are loved members of the forever family of Christ and should be treated with the same love and respect as traditionally married persons, then we would not need to be citing the verse which suggests it is not good for a human being to be alone.\u00a0 To be an integral, indeed essential, part of the Body of Christ and to be loved as such is not to be alone.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the end do we really want or need a God who is quixotic and changes his mind?\u00a0 How exactly can we trust God and his Word if he keeps changing his mind?\u00a0 How can we even know what God really thinks about crucial matters if this is true?\u00a0 I especially raise this question because both Chris and Richard Hays are raising this issue in regard to God changing his mind AFTER the writing of Scripture on this particular issue.\u00a0 There is no positive evidence in the Scripture that God changed his mind about sexual ethics, even if you accept the argument that God changed his mind on other subjects unrelated to human sexual behavior.\u00a0 To the contrary, the critique of same sex sexual behavior is strong in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, in both the OT and the NT.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The argument that after the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, 2,000 years later that same\u00a0 Holy Spirit led the church in a different direction is not tenable.\u00a0 And the argument that we know that God\u2019s mind has changed because we have experienced LGBTQ+ folk as good Christians who deserve to be included in anything and everything the Church does, is entirely an argument from personal experience and not tenable.\u00a0 In short, it is an argument based on assumed analogies.\u00a0 The Scriptural evidence that God changes his mind is not acceptable and involves a misreading of the key verb nacham.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Great is Thy faithfulness, O God my Father;<\/span> Refrain:<\/em><\/span> Lyrics by Thomas Chisholm, 1923<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PART FOUR:\u00a0 THE TREATMENT OF THE NT\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let it first be said that Richard\u2019s treatment of the Gospels does indeed place the emphasis in the right place in terms of God\u2019s mercy and compassion as expressed in Christ\u2019s various teachings and healings and acts of fellowship.\u00a0 The problem with these chapters is the important topics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":67992,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[14928],"class_list":["post-68016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-jesus-on-marriage"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThere is no shadow of turning with Thee;<\/span>
\nThou changest not, Thy compassions, they fail not;<\/span>
\nAs Thou hast been Thou forever wilt be.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\nGreat is Thy faithfulness!<\/span>
\nGreat is Thy faithfulness!<\/span>
\nMorning by morning new mercies I see:<\/span>
\nAll I have needed Thy hand hath provided\u2014<\/span>
\nGreat is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me!<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n