Category: Apologetics

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Opening

Should we be following the Law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am taking a brief hiatus from the look at God changing His mind to deal with this book.

The Pauline Paradox is a book that is put forward by 119 Ministries trying to argue that Christians should follow the Torah. I decided to get it because there are a number of people on the Jehovah’s Witnesses debate group on Facebook that have bought into this and go on and on about the Law of God. Rarely will you ever see these people say anything about Jesus.

This book is looking at the question that many Christians have when they hear about an organization like this? Isn’t Paul the grand teacher of the idea that we don’t follow the Law because we’re under grace? Indeed, this has been Christian teaching for hundreds of years. Even nowadays, much of New Testament scholarship has abandoned any idea that Paul invented Christianity. I will not be dealing with that latter claim here anyway, but I will contend that Paul is certainly right in line with His master Jesus.

Before looking at the book and what it talks about, I want to mention what it doesn’t talk about that is quite surprising.

That is the Law itself.

Oh, sure. We have a lot of talk about what Paul said about the Law and what Jesus said about the Law. That’s fine. We do not have much said about what the Law itself is. What is its purpose? How is it to be followed today?

You’ll see that Jesus said that until Heaven and Earth disappear, not one bit of the Law will pass away. Unfortunately, you won’t see a lot of sustained exegesis on that passage. Consider what Craig Blomberg by contrast says about Matthew 5:18.

Verse 18 reaffirms the absolute authority of all of the Scriptures down to the smallest components of individual words. They will endure for all time but with the important qualification “until everything is accomplished.” With the coming of Christ, many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition (e.g., the need for sacrifices, on which see Hebrews). In other instances certain requirements of the law endure until Christ’s coming again (e.g., classically, love of neighbor and God). In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament. Given this hermeneutic, correct teaching and practice of all “these commandments” (v. 19, almost certainly referring back to the Old Testament law just mentioned) are crucial. Jesus will give six illustrations of such correct interpretation shortly (vv. 21–48).

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 104–105.

What actually happens is that Jesus in His interpretation is giving us a law that is even harder. Consider that the Law says “Do not murder.” Okay. Well, let me take a brief life-review here and think back…..yep! I’m good! Haven’t murdered anyone! That’s one of the big ten! Doing good!

“But I say to you, do not hate your brother.”

“Oh.”

All of a sudden, I realize I have done that and that that can still be a struggle.

“You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ”

Let’s see. I am divorced now, but I saved sex for marriage and I don’t do pornography and I have remained celibate while being divorced. Hey! Look at that! I’m doing good again!

“But I say to you, do not lust after a woman in your heart.”

“Okay. Not doing so good.”

Also, if we are to follow the Law, do we not have to offer sacrifices? That was a big part of the Law after all. Consider how Matthew 5 also says this:

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

What is the gift but a sacrifice? If the Law is still in full effect, should we not offer sacrifices?

In Exodus 12, the people were commanded to eat the Passover in their own homes. In Deut. 16, it was in the place God chose for them. In Lev. 17, meat was to be brought to the tabernacle. In Deut. 12, this is done away with because some people would live far away from the tabernacle and not get to eat meat at all.

Also, if Moses was the final word, then what about what came after? What about the Prophets? What about celebrations like Purim? Jesus is in the temple area during the Feast of Dedication which celebrates the Maccabean revolt which certainly did not show up in the Law.

What about something like slavery? Are we allowed to have slaves again? These are systems that had their place in the times of the Bible, but not so today. This is not to say that Orthodox Jews, for instance, can’t follow any of the Law, but certainly not all of it is possible.

So before we even begin looking at the very first chapter, I have questions. It is quite surprising that a book all about how Christians should follow the Law, really says very little about the Law.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Exodus 32

Did God need to be persuaded? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Exodus 32 is not a proud moment in Jewish history. It is the golden calf incident. In the midst of the event where Moses is on the mountain and Aaron has made the calf, we see God saying this to Moses:

7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Often times, when it comes to open theism, the idea is that God doesn’t know the future. However, the future is not the primary cause of discussion here. In this case, if we take this passage in a literalistic sense, God doesn’t know the past. Moses had a better memory than God did. God would have apparently forgot the covenant promise that He made.

So is that what happened?

Tertullian says about this in Against Marcion that

But (you say) God was even then mean enough in His very fierceness, when, in His wrath against the people for their consecration of the calf, He makes this request of His servant Moses: “Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation.” Accordingly, you maintain that Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator, nay the averter, of His anger. “For,” said he, “Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them.” Pitiable are ye also, as well as the people, since you know not Christ, prefigured in the person of Moses as the deprecator of the Father, and the offerer of His own life for the salvation of the people. It is enough, however, that the nation was at the instant really given to Moses. That which he, as a servant, was able to ask of the Lord, the Lord required of Himself. For this purpose did He say to His servant, “Let me alone, that I may consume them,” in order that by his entreaty, and by offering himself, he might hinder (the threatened judgment), and that you might by such an instance learn how much privilege is vouchsafed with God to a faithful man and a prophet.

It’s worth pointing out that the idea that God was willing to do this was a Marcionite position. Tertullian says this was done to illustrate something about the person of Christ. Just as Moses interceded, so Jesus would intercede for His people.

Looking over other citations, this seems to be the main position of the church fathers. Moses does this to show his role as an intercessor. God gives him the opportunity to do this.

From a philosophical perspective, what we have here is a God who is not the God of all truth. He doesn’t know all truth. He is not omniscient. He needs to be reminded. This is no longer God. This is Superman. He’s just a much bigger form of us.

I conclude then that if we take this text in a literalistic sense, then we have a lesser deity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Is The World Geared Towards Extroverts?

What are the struggles of being an introvert? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I work at the post office in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. It is the only job I have had in New Orleans. I am a good employee there, but my boss understands there are also times of difficulty in how I interact with people. People can come in and start speaking to us and I don’t really say anything.

Am I wanting to be rude? Not at all. I’m more of a mind my own business type of person. I don’t engage unless I think there’s a real reason to engage. Note that there could be even times I want to engage and struggle to do so, such as when a beautiful lady comes in.

Of course, there’s also being on the spectrum, but I think what I say works for introverts.

We recently hired someone new at the Post Office who got surprised that when I walk in, I don’t greet anyone. I explained, “I have worked here ever since the new boss came along and never once have I greeted when I came in.” Am I rude? No. That’s just not me. Does she know I’m a friend to her? Absolutely. She’s taking a writing class now and so I look over everything she writes. I want it to be the best that it can be, and I try to give my own tips on writing.

There is a thrift shop across the street that I go to sometimes. I notice that when I go in and the bell on the door rings, the people there can shout “Welcome to the thrift store!”

Every time I inwardly hope that they won’t.

When I go shopping at Five Below, I use the self check-out and then I see a question at the end on it saying “Were you greeted today?” I know what they’re wanting to do in asking that, but I always wish I could say, “No. It was great. Please repeat that next time.”

When I go to church, there are two doors to enter. If I can, I look to see which one someone is coming out of to greet me and then I turn and go to the other door. I know they mean well, but it’s just awkward for me.

I also don’t really understand it when people think it’s okay to come up and touch me. A light pat on the back or anything is uncomfortable. When people ask me “How are you?” I just freeze or shrug or say nothing really. It’s a question I don’t care about. I just think “Fake, fake, fake.”

Being introverted is hard when the world seems geared towards extroverts.

Now consider also there are introverts who aren’t Christians. If you want to reach them and you use the methods I have just described, odds are, you won’t. To get to know people like us, it can take work, but it will be worth it. We need to know you really care. You aren’t just friendly just because we’re another face. I suspect extroverts look at other people and see a potential new friend. Those of us who are introverts see a potential new threat.

Also, if you find something we have in common, that can work great. Believe it or not, we love talking about our interests. We despise small talk. It’s a fake show to us and we want to get down to the subject matter. I have a pair of friends who are husband and wife and they’re both on the spectrum. When we reach out to each other, we immediately jump into what we need to talk about and that’s it.

I can’t stop someone from being extroverted. It’s not wrong, but it is different from those of us who are not. Just as there are some things we do that bother extroverts, there are things you do that are hard for us to understand and accept. It is possible for extroverts and introverts to be friends, but please understand we will always be the quiet ones in the relationship, and that’s okay.

When you do evangelism, remember that also. Don’t write someone off immediately because they don’t want to talk. Pray with them and try to understand them slowly. Once they open up, it could be a great chance to get them to the gospel.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

The Bartering God

Did God seek Abraham’s Advice? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Genesis 18, after the Lord meets with Abraham and his wife and announces the birth of Isaac, we find this curious exchange take place.

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

What is going on here? Does God not know what He’s going to do? Why is the Almighty God having a bartering exchange with a mere mortal like this? Is Abraham changing God’s mind?

Not at all. Early in the passage, God states what will happen to Abraham in the future. He has said earlier in another passage to Abraham about how long his children will be in bondage in Egypt and they will come up again. God knows what is going to happen. Before this whole exchange starts, God knows the city will be destroyed anyway. He doesn’t get new information.

So why is He doing this?

He’s showing the way the covenant will work. He still wants people to interact with Him. He still wants them to make their requests known. God knows what we want even before we ask as Jesus says, but He still wants us to ask. This covenant is not going to be “I make all the decisions. Sit down and get in line!”

Pascal once said prayer gives us divine causality. God takes everything into account from eternity past, even our prayers. It could be what happened would not have happened had we not prayed for it. God did what He did in advance knowing what our prayers would be. Confusing? Yes. Can you get a headache thinking on that one too long? Yes.

Yet it is fully true and stays consistent with Scripture and the Lord who is sovereign over space and time and not limited by them in any way.

Come to Him. He wants to hear from you. He takes your requests seriously.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Did God Think Mankind Was A Mistake?

Did the Almighty have second thoughts? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

While this examination of if God can change His mind will start with Scripture, it will be impossible to avoid tradition and reason along the way. Let’s start with a big example in Genesis 6:6-7.

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

To many, the text seems clear, God repented. Yet what does this mean? If God does something wrong, does God need forgiveness? And if God needs forgiveness, who is above Him that can give it? If God needs forgiveness, how can He be good? If it just means regret, what else does God regret that we might not even know about? Could He regret having us in eternity one day?

Tertullian says about this that:

In this way it was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as He always did to take upon Him man’s actual component substances, body and soul, making inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant), “Where art thou, Adam?”—repenting that He had made man, as if He had lacked foresight; tempting Abraham, as if ignorant of what was in man; offended with persons, and then reconciled to them; and whatever other (weaknesses and imperfections) the heretics lay hold of (in their assumptions) as unworthy of God, in order to discredit the Creator, not considering that these circumstances are suitable enough for the Son, who was one day to experience even human sufferings—hunger and thirst, and tears, and actual birth and real death, and in respect of such a dispensation “made by the Father a little less than the angels.”

Thus, God asks a question, but not as if He was ignorant. He repents, but not as if He doesn’t have foresight, and on and on. The language is here for a reason. Tertullian ultimately thinks it’s meant to show us something about Christ when He comes.

In a later account said to describe a debate between Simon Magus and Peter, we read that:

“Therefore also Adam, being made at first after his likeness, is created blind, and is said not to have knowledge of good or evil, and is found a transgressor, and is driven out of paradise, and is punished with death.  In like manner also, he who made him, because he sees not in all places, says with reference to the overthrow of Sodom, ‘Come, and let us go down, and see whether they do according to their cry which comes to me; or if not, that I may know.’  Thus he shows himself ignorant.  And in his saying respecting Adam, ‘Let us drive him out, lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever;’ in saying Lest he is ignorant; and in driving him out lest he should eat and live for ever, he is also envious.  And whereas it is written that ‘God repented that he had made man,’ this implies both repentance and ignorance.  For this reflection is a view by which one, through ignorance, wishes to inquire into the result of the things which he wills, or it is the act of one repenting on account of the event not being according to his expectation.  And whereas it is written, ‘And the Lord smelled a scent of sweetness,’ it is the part of one in need; and his being pleased with the fat of flesh is the part of one who is not good.  But his tempting, as it is written, ‘And God did tempt Abraham,’ is the part of one who is wicked, and who is ignorant of the issue of the experiment.”

I do not think this is historical at all, but i do think it is a representation of Christian thought at the time. The arguments made today by some to show God changes His mind were those made by heretics in the past.

Augustine in the City of God says:

For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented), this is said with reference to man’s expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do.

And he says:

The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin.  His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain.  But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie.  But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching:  not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.

It wasn’t just the fathers who thought this language wasn’t literal. John Calvin said the same thing:

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’ Similar to this is what he says, in the second place, concerning grief; that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief: There is here, therefore, an unexpressed antithesis between that upright nature which had been created by God, and that corruption which sprung from sin. Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put him to grief, let us learn to abhor and to flee from sin. Moreover, this paternal goodness and tenderness ought, in no slight degree, to subdue in us the love of sin; since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopatheia

And Keil and Delitzsch:

The force of ינּחם, “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from the explanatory יתעצּב, “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Samuel 15:29), “quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit” (Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish” (Calvin). The destruction of all, “from man unto beast,” etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall. This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of humanity.

At this point, one could say that all of these people, from the fathers to the Reformers, were wrong about how they saw God. It is entirely possible that they could be. However, to argue that, one needs to make a better case than just “I think God literally has these emotions in Him.”

From a perspective of reason, one has to deny to some extent that God knows the future and did not know what people would do. With that, I do not know how He could be the God of all truth since He would not know all truth but would merely be discovering all truth. There is no way all knowledge could lie in Him since He would be always learning something new.

Many times when I encounter atheists who like to put God on the same moral plane as us as if God has to follow a moral law out there, I say that their argument is not against God, but against Superman. God is on a whole other plane than we are. We should not be surprised if we cannot describe Him entirely with our language and must use what Aquinas called analogical language. A God that would be easy to understand would not be the God of Scripture.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Approaching The Question Of God Changing His Mind?

How shall we go about discussing God changing His mind? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Now that we’re doing going through The Widening of God’s Mercy, it’s time to look at the question of if God can change His mind. In doing this, I have decided to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. This is where we look at knowledge in a chain of four different areas.

Scripture.
Tradition.
Reason.
Experience.

I will not be looking at every single Scripture that can be used in this, but I hope to touch the major ones. In the same way, I cannot claim to know the church fathers exhaustively so much of my information will be just using online databases to look up what they say. Those who know the fathers better are fully encouraged to join in and contribute their own ideas.

I am also going to come into this discussion with some underlying assumptions that I won’t bother defending in here because this is an in-house discussion among Christians. Questions of if God exists and if Scripture is reliable are not the issue that I have here. I have written plenty on those in other blog posts so feel free to look those up if you want to know more. However, if in this look we come across anything that could be a textual variant that is relevant to the discussion, I will bring that up.

Another assumption I am going to make is that all truth is God’s truth, which right at the start I think presents a problem for those who think God can change His mind, but I will get to that later. If something can be shown thoroughly to be a truth of reason, Scripture will not contradict it nor will the overwhelming tradition. There is no double-theory where something can be true in the area of Scripture, but the opposite can be true in the area of reason.

Experience is the only aspect that I do not see at this point how it can be used in this question. One could say the experience of the figures in the Bible, but then that falls under the category of Scripture. While I do think God could hypothetically reveal something today, someone who claims to have a message on the authority of God better bring up some really good evidence to show that they are speaking the truth.

Also, as fascinating as they could be, when we look at this, discussions of Arminianism, Calvinism, and any other related ism to questions of salvation and free-will will not be closely examined. Readers of this blog know that I choose to not debate those issues. If you want to in the comments, that is fine, but I will leave it to others to discuss those with you.

I cannot say how long this will take, but I hope in the end there will be a better informed position for all of us on the issue. Reading my book review, there is no question where I stand so I admit that upfront and it would take tremendous evidence to change my mind based on years of studying this issue. If all goes according to plan, we will start that tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Conclusion

How does it all end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am unsure if this final part is one or both Hayses, so I will just say the Hayses. Again, we find the idea popping up of God changing His mind.

Because God sometimes changes his mind and his approaches to the world, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same. This book presents a biblical vision of God that differs from what many people assume about God and the Bible. As we have seen in case after case, the Bible doesn’t portray God as static; instead, it tells stories that portray God as a mysterious, dynamic, personal power who can and does change his mind and reveal new and surprising facets of his will. In

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 207). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I plan on writing on the topic of the problem of God changing His mind, but the issue is that the Hayses took 2,000 years of Christian theology, threw it in the trash, then approached the text to see if they could find something to justify their positions. Hey! If God changed His mind, let’s just assume that He did it on this section too! One would hope that there was some new revelation or something. Maybe God has changed His mind on incest or pederasts or on murder. Maybe God now thinks greed is good or would really like us to bring back that slavery thing?

I mean, why not? All you need to do in the world of the Hayses is assert that this has happened and then it is done.

It may be difficult to get our minds around this idea, but if we take the biblical narratives seriously, we can’t avoid the conclusion that God regularly changes his mind, even when it means overriding previous judgments. To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as “strangers and aliens” but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.” Full stop.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 209). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

The question is not if it is difficult to get our minds around. It is rather, “Is this true?” If you’re going to upend again all of Christian tradition with regard to the immutability of God, you’d better make a strong case. Everyone who holds to the classical position, like myself, knows all about the texts that the Hayses bring forward. Unfortunately, they don’t interact with anyone who holds to a different position.

Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings that they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 214). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Definitely. It’s not hard to see that. The question is “Should we do that?” The Hayses have not presented a case that we should.

For many, the evidence of experience outweighs the inertia of tradition and the force of a few biblical prooftexts on these questions. In the same way, we see LGBTQ Christians all around us who are already contributing their gifts and graces to the work of God in the world and in the church.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 215). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

And if you get to this position, anything goes. It is we who become the masters of Scripture. It submits to us. If our experience tells us one thing and the Scriptures another, so much the worse for the Scriptures.

For now, my next plan is to write on the idea that God cannot change His mind.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 16

Who are the strong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So let’s just jump right into it with a quote from this chapter.

The gospel is a word about mercy, all the way down. No one deserves mercy, but we all need it.8 And in the end—in some unfathomable way—God will show mercy to all.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 197). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Possibly, but that doesn’t mean forgiveness. One could say being cut off from the blessed presence of God could be a mercy to those who do not repent of their sins. Is that what we would normally think of with mercy? Probably not. Is Hays embracing universalism here? Who knows?

Yet this is not even the biggest problem in this chapter.

Let’s see what he says about matters like Romans 14 and the strong and the weak. In these chapters, Hays says that the strong are the ones who realize their freedom and think the weak are tight and legalistic. Meanwhile, the weak think that they are the ones that are following God’s commandments.

(It will not escape careful readers of the present book that the first-century conflict between “the strong” and “the weak” has its haunting parallels in the conflicts that divide the church in our time, not least in conflicts over sexual practices.)

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (pp. 199-200). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Ah yes. Way to put yourself on the side of the strong. Would Hays be so quick to do this if the side of the strong was saying, oh, that it’s okay to have sex with children? Now someone who is “weak” like myself would say that this violates the commandments of God. We cannot allow this.

What if we went back 150 years and found ourselves in Mormon Utah? Would the strong be those who allowed for polygamy and the weak are those who said “Scripture is clear that it is one man and one woman. I could just as easily draw parallels in these cases as Hays does here.

Maybe he doesn’t really mean that. Try to show some grace.

Well, sadly, he does.

The “strong” ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to “despise” the “weak,” narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the “weak” ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to “pass judgment” on the sinful laxity of the “strong” who condone same-sex unions.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 203). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So remember Christian, you are in his mind a narrow-minded rule-follower. To go back, what if I put in here people having sex with children or people practicing polygamy. What if I put in here people having sex outside of marriage? What if I put in here people watching pornography?

Or is it just the group that Richard Hays likes that gets a free pass?

And yet, if that is not enough.

Paul makes it clear that he himself is on the side of the “strong,” who believe no food is unclean (Rom 14:14, 15:1)

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 203). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Now Hays is insisting that Paul would be on his side today. Well, considering this is the same Paul who wrote Romans 1, no. Paul would not back down on the moral commands of the Law for a moment.

Richard Hays has done passed on. For all we know, he might have met Paul by now.

I’m sure if so, it could be an interesting conversation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 15

Does a change to welcome the Gentiles indicate a change to welcome same-sex attracted people? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

How did Richard Hays fall so far?

He used to be seen as a stalwart in many issues and a great mind in ethics. If you look at this work, you wonder where that has gone. There is no interaction with the scholarship. There is no interaction with the critics. There are just pronouncements. It is as if he is trying to sneak in his conclusion in whichever way he can so it won’t be looked at.

So this chapter is about the Jerusalem Council. This is something that took place in Acts 15. As the church welcomed Gentiles in, the relationship between the law and Christianity needed to be clarified. How much of the law were Gentiles supposed to follow? Could they do whatever they wanted?

In this chapter, some Pharisees show up saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and taught to follow the Law of Moses. The church met, with the apostles, to debate the issue. Notice that. They debated it. They did not just make a pronouncement.

To the thankfulness of all Gentile men, it was decided that we did not need to be circumcised. (You think evangelism could be hard today? Imagine telling a guy who is interested in convert what he has to undergo and see how willing he is then.) However, that did not mean anything goes. There were four things Gentiles were taught to avoid. Three could be included under trying to not offend Jewish sensibilities and that is eating blood of animals, strangled animals, and food offered to idols.

Yet one more item was sexual immorality. There is never any hint in the Pauline epistles that there is any wavering on this issue. Sex is for a husband and a wife. End of story.

But what does Richard Hays say?

Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities? Indeed, it is a promising model, fully consistent with the flow of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s expansive grace. The model suggests that just as the early Christians deliberated together and decided to remove barriers to gentile participation in the community of Jesus-followers, so also the church today should open its doors fully to those of differing sexual orientations.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 189). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

No. It doesn’t. The council met together to deal with an issue that was not addressed in the Jesus tradition and they did so based on Scripture. If the same model is followed today and it is based on Scripture, the case is clear. Scripture does not approve of these relationships. The Gentiles were not sinners because they were Gentiles, as if all Jews were pure and innocent. They were sinners because of the things that they did and because they were fallen human beings.

There is no parallel. The standard of no sexual immorality still applies today. It would be interesting to see how the council would have responded had Richard Hays been there.

What should be of most concern is how God responds.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 14

Can man thwart God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Whoa. What happened to those other chapters?

Nothing. That’s the problem. Richard Hays just really doesn’t say much that’s interesting. It’s your typical simplistic emotional appeals. That’s a great disappointment with this book. There’s no interaction with the recent scholarship on this issue. Any critics are ignored entirely. You might as well be reading Bart Ehrman.

So how does the 14th chapter begin?

Is it possible for human beings to block God’s gracious action by insisting on the strict application of God’s own biblical commandments? Or, to turn the question around, are there times when God’s Spirit breaks down conscientious human resistance by doing something new that revises previously given laws and judgments?

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 171). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Hays’s example of this is Acts 10 with the conversion of Cornelius, but there is nothing in the conversion that violates God’s laws and commandments. Gentiles were always welcome to come and be a part of the chosen people of God. Israel was told to reject the practices of the Gentiles, but if the Gentiles rejected any wicked practices they were doing, God accepted them.

Hays is assuming that the LGBTQ practices are now acceptable. Unfortuantely, he has not given us any reason to think such. We have simply had emotional appeals all throughout. Even if we granted God could change His mind, which I will not grant at all, it does not follow He has done such on this. There has not been a “Thus sayeth the Lord” given.

Such an argument is only convincing to those who want to be convinced. Why is it that God has changed His mind allegedly on the issue? We don’t know. It is probably most like as Hays said in The Moral Vision of the New Testament going back to issues he has with the way the church acted in regards to issues concerning same-sex romantic relationships and also with a friend of his who was same-sex attracted.

As my research is on stories, there is no doubt such stories are gripping, but we must make sure that as gripping as stories are, that we still verify the information that comes from them. Media has been used many times to bypass the thinking and go straight to the emotions. That’s not always bad. If anything contributed to our society changing its mind on LGBTQ relationships, it was likely Will and Grace. The same-sex attracted character was seen in a positive light and soon most every show or movie had to have someone who was same-sex attracted.

For a people who do not think rationally but tend to think emotionally, such stories tend to work effectively. C.S. Lewis did strike at the imagination with writings like The Chronicles of Narnia or his space trilogy, but he could also back the case logically if he needed to. In this book, all the Hayses have done is try to appeal to our emotions and they are willing to sacrifice centuries of a doctrine of God to do that.

Unfortunately, while stories are powerful, stories cannot change reality. They cannot change the reality of God. They can change the way we act in reality, but you can write all the stories you want about gravity going away, but you will still fall if you jump off a cliff.

You can have all the emotional appeals you want saying LGBTQ relationships are okay, but destruction still lies down that path.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)