Gay Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage and Evangelical Concern

The Supreme Court Decision last month has been a cause of concern for many evangelical Christians before and after they gave their 5-4 decision that made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Many evangelical Christians believe that gay marriage goes against the clear teaching of Scriptures, and point to Gen 2 and Matt 19, and several Old Testament and New Testament texts commonly considered to be concerning homosexuality. I would place myself in their ranks, but rather than posting a blog defending traditional marriage, or warning America that they are departing from the godly principles that have brought our country blessing, I would like to call my fellow right-leaning Evangelicals to a little introspection.

What is it that makes gays and lesbians our favorite targets? Some of Jesus’ teachings may apply to the issue of gay marriage, such as the aforementioned Matt 19, but in sort of a second-order way; by inference. 

There is another modern issue about which Jesus had some rather direct things to say, with no inference needed (Matt 19; Mark 10). Jesus confronted divorce and remarriage head-on, in no uncertain terms. Through the prophet Malachi, the LORD says rather clearly, “I hate divorce (Mal 2:16).” The Torah allowed for divorce (Deut 24:1), but Jesus submitted that it was only because of the stubbornness of the Israelites, not because it was something God approved. I could give more examples of biblical texts that speak against divorce, leaving behind, divorce and remarriage. Evangelical biblical scholars have performed exegetical gymnastics to relieve the offense and discomfort that these texts may cause to their divorced and remarried constituents in a similar way that a number of scholars have bent backwards to say that the biblical texts that condemn homosexual acts are not relevant to the modern phenomenon of gay marriage. With few exceptions, I have not heard many pronouncements about the evils of divorce and remarriage. 

If all of the gays and lesbians got married tomorrow, the societal effect, and I think that there could be SOME deleterious effect, would be miniscule to the devastation that our modern heterosexual divorce culture has wrought. Yet, the church seems to have accepted it with little difficulty, with my own denomination even allowing divorced and remarried persons to be ministers. I am not calling for a purgation of divorced and remarried persons from our midst, but reflect on this in order for us to get to motivations, seeing that divorce and remarriage is probably even more clearly condemned in scripture, by Jesus no less, than gay marriage.

But back to my question about why gays and lesbians are our favorite targets. Unlike divorced and remarried folk, who make up a little over one half of our church constituencies, gays and lesbians hardly darken the doors of our churches, and if they did, they would be a relatively small demographic, as they are in society at large—we can seem holy by confronting the sin of homosexuality without risking a mass exodus from our churches and our coffers beginning to run empty. I submit to you, then, that it is an issue of money and attendance rolls as much as it is about the teaching of Scriptures. Right-leaning Evangelicals, take a moment and think about it.

A Functional approach to Biblical Inspiration

I have worked at an institution which interacts with Christ believers from all over the world for the last several years, and have also learned quite a bit about Church history and the impact that the Bible has made in various societies. This impact has been through translation into the various languages of peoples around the globe. It does not seem to me that a purely ontological approach to inspiration of Scriptures takes the fact that it is through translation, not the original texts, that the Bible has made its greatest impact. This is not to say that the original texts of the Bible were not inspired, and owe their existence to the Holy Spirit guiding the producers of those texts. It is just that this is an inadequate place to leave the discussion given how Christ believers have interacted with the Bible over the centuries.

A more adequate approach is to consider the functionality of the Bible in our discussions of inspiration. We can even start with the same text, 2 Tim 3:16-17, where Paul gives basically a discussion of inspiration that is functional. The Bible does certain things in the church. It is  "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16)." When we look at how the Church fathers understood the term theopneustos "God-breathed," it basically conforms to this functional view. Certain writings were useful for the church.

The Bible in translation fits the bill for what Paul says in 2 Tim 3:16-17 concerning what Scripture does, how it functions. Such an approach to inspiration, although in some ways frightening, as it is a step away from arguing that inspired equals inerrant, which virtually no one argues for translations, fits what 2 Tim 3:16 says about what the function of a divinely inspired text is.

The above approach to inspiration more accurately reflects how the Bible has operated in Christ believing communities from the beginning. It has made its biggest impact in translation. This leaves the inerrant nature of the original texts of the Bible unexamined, which is not the interest of this essay in the first place. It is an approach to inspiration that relies on the Holy Spirit's work in Christ-believing communities as an essential guide to faithful theological reflection and praxis as God's Word is contextually embodied in every culture and leaves its indelible, transformative mark.

Leviticus and Jesus: Restoration of Creation

The idea that we can equally view Jesus' death and resurrection from the vantage-point of Leviticus, as well as Leviticus from the Vantage-point of Jesus' death and resurrection is instructive, and bears a lot of fruit. Leviticus depicts the Day of Atonement, and the sacrifice in the Central Sanctuary as not only a place of forgiveness of the nation of Israel's sins, but also as a purification of the sanctuary (See Lev. 16). Scholars who reflect on this, chief among them being Jacob Milgrom and Jon Levenson (most others simply draw on them), write that the Central Sanctuary, first the mobile tabernacle, and then the Jerusalem Temple is a microcosm of the world. The purification of the tabernacle, then, restores balance to a creation that has been put into disharmony with its Creator, so that the LORD's blessing may flow into that creation, and the creation is upheld. Granted, this is done on a small scale in the purification of the tabernacle, but it is done on behalf of the whole world, and stands in for the reconciliation of the whole world to its Creator.

Likewise, through Christ's death and resurrection, Christ has entered into the heavenly sanctuary and made purification for sin. This not only allows for the believer to enter into right relationship with his or her Creator, but also reconciles all of creation to God. Christ upholds the world by the word of his power by virtue of the purification that he made in his death and resurrection (Hebrews 1). what was done on behalf of Israel in the Central Sanctuary and Jerusalem Temple has been done on behalf of the whole world through Jesus Christ. As Paul writes in Romans 8:19-22,

¹⁹ For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope²¹ that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

Every thing has been placed under Christ's feet due to his victorious, purifying work on the Cross. As Creation is made subject to him rather than to futility, creation is restored.

What does this mean concerning the comprehensive scope of the Gospel? Tell me what you think, and we will continue this discussion tomorrow.

How does the NT relate to the OT: A Two-Track Approach

One way that the Old Testament can relate to the New Testament is through what I call a two-track approach. Here is a description of what I mean.

An interesting vantage-point, I think, is to view the relationship between the OT and the New is that we are on two tracks, one leading from the OT to the New, and one leading from the New Testament to the Old. In any point of Biblical theology, we can stand from the vantage-point of one of the testaments and ask how the other illuminates it. For example, it is commonplace to read the OT Sacrifices from the vantage-point of Jesus. Jesus fulfills the OT sacrificial system. Is it illuminating to read the crucifixion of Jesus from the vantage-point of Leviticus? What would it have to say that is of help in understanding the nature of what Jesus has done in his crucifixion and resurrection? Even the last statement betrays a Christocentric approach to the text that the self-consciously Christian scholar cannot escape. As a Christian, I will ask different things from the text than a Jewish scholaror scholar from another religion or with no faith experience at all.

This is a Canonical approach like Brevard Childs’, in which the OT and NT are the Church’s book, and that what is authoritative for the church is the Bible as read in the church. The Bible is interpreted in the community of Faith, and has a binding word to say to them. This is almost similar to Brueggemann’s approach, in which he writes that the NT story is one way with which to interpret the OT, but it is not necessary. There are a variety of appropriate approaches. This fits into Brueggemann’s radically community centered view of authority by which the community can accept the witness of the Scriptures, in which they become binding, but they can just as easily not. Childs sees the whole Bible as being a reliable revelation of God. This of course, is also testimony concerning God, but it is more than that. It is more than just Testimony, but a truth statement concerning God.

Tomorrow, we will unpack what viewing the crucifixion through the lens of Leviticus has to say about Christ's redemptive work on the cross.

The Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, a two-track approach.

It is no doubt that from a Christian reading of the Old Testament, that Jesus Christ fulfilled much of the Old Testament Law, as, for example, Jesus pronounces all foods clean in Mark 7:19 (Textus Receptus has a slightly different reading here, as reflected in the NKJV,  "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?)." This in essence, nullifies the role of the dietary and food laws in the life of the Christian community. In a similar manner, Christ's high-priestly sacrifice has fulfilled the sacrificial law for the forgiveness of sins (interestingly, Hebrews has little to say about peace and thank offerings), as illustrated in the book of Hebrews. As the sin offering at the Day of Atonement was given by limited, imperfect, sinful priests who needed to atone for their own sins first, it needed to be repeated year after year, and could not clean the conscience. Christ's self-sacrifice was once and for all, and could clean the conscience, as his sacrifice was perfect.

When we look from the vantage-point of the New Testament witness, then, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, as described in Lev 16, is of no longer any use for the forgiveness of sins, the perfect has replaced the imperfect. When we look from the vantage-point of Leviticus 16, however, and explore what Leviticus has to say about what was accomplished in the Day of Atonement, our view of what Jesus has done is enriched.

We will explore this further tomorrow. God bless.

How does the New Testament and Old Testament relate to each other?

What I would like to begin exploring on Bible Thoughts Today is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The church has always affirmed that what is known as the Old Testament is Christian Scripture, as much as the New Testament is. Has the coming of Jesus changed the status of the Old Testament? Is the Old Testament and what it contains merely a "shadow" of things fulfilled in the New Testament? These questions are not easy to answer, because the Old Testament is read differently in the light of what Jesus has done in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension to God the Father's right hand. I am going to make a statement related to the issue of the relationship between the two testaments, and let the discussion begin, and as that discussion unfold, talk about what has been said about the testaments' relationship.
The Bible can be read multivalently. It is fruitful to read Genesis by itself, read it in its relationship with the rest of the Old Testament, and read it in relationship with the rest of the Christian Canon. The messages we get from Genesis as we do this are beneficial and complementary to each other. An example of this is when we read in Genesis 12:1-3 that through Abraham's seed all the families of the earth will be blessed. In relation to Genesis alone, we see this clearly in the story of Joseph, as he saves the families of the earth from starvation. In relation to the Old Testament as a whole, we see Israel's mission of blessing and witness to all of the peoples of the earth. In relation to the New Testament, we see this blessing through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Abraham's greatest Son, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. We can see, as well, that believers in Christ are to extend the blessing, as heirs of Abraham's promise.

Respond to this blog, and let the discussion begin. Tomorrow, I will reflect on how the Old and New Testaments are fruitfully read in dialogue with each other, looking at How the Book of Hebrews reflects on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16, and what light Leviticus casts on what Christ's sacrifice accomplishes.

Thank you for reading Bible Thoughts Today. If you find this blog helpful, recommend it to others, and leave a comment.

Resources for Transformational Development from the Old Testament: How do we use Old Testament Law? Part 5: John Rogerson's Method

February 1, 2013’s Bible Thoughts Today explores method in interpreting Old Testament Law for transformational development. It concentrates on the method of John Rogerson, a British Old Testament theologian and ethicist.  

            So far, this blog has been quite general and has roughly outlined the role that the legal material of the Pentateuch played in the life of Israelite and Jewish communities, and has drawn some implications for some of the goals of development work. This begs the question concerning how the specific, time and culture bound, specific legal material that makes up the whole of the Pentateuch’s legal material is used in development work. Again, I draw upon the categories of Old Testament ethics in order to suggest an answer to the question.

            John Rogerson’s method in his book, Theory and Practice of Old Testament Ethics involves the discovery and use “of imperatives of redemption” and “structures of grace.” Rogerson defines an “imperative of redemption” as, “a reason for commanding a particular action that is grounded in what God has graciously done in redemption.” He defines a “structure of grace” as “a social arrangement that is meant to work our graciousness in practical terms, so that both those who administer it and those who benefit it are aware of the graciousness implied.”[1]

            Rogerson’s “imperatives of redemption” and “structures of grace” work in tandem. An example of an imperative of redemption is Deuteronomy 15:14b-15,

Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

This command is given in the context of a law regarding providing liberally for a Hebrew slave when the slave leaves a master’s service after his limited term of service ends,

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.  And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14a)

The structure of grace, which provides for the release from a limited period of slavery used to settle debts, is rooted in the fact that the Israelite who purchased the Hebrew slave is descendant of a people who were slaves in Egypt. Because the master’s ancestors, and hence the master, has experienced the pain of slavery, and been redeemed from it by God, the master should be generous with the slave(s) that he has. The law regarding the release of slaves in Deuteronomy and Leviticus 25[2] and the law of Jubilee in which sold land reverts back to its original owners, and thus a family’s patrimony and means of independent livelihood is restored (Lev 25) is grounded in the fact that since Israel was redeemed by God from Egypt, the Israelites are God’s servants and should not be treated as another’s slaves. The idea that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt that God redeemed is the motive force, or “imperative of redemption” behind the laws in Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25 regarding the freeing and generous treatment of Hebrew slaves and the return of a family’s ancestral land in the year of Jubilee.[3]

                The limited scope of the areas of life covered in the legal material of the Pentateuch means that rather than providing a comprehensive rule for every area of Israelite life, they were meant to portray the character of the LORD, and the type of society that Israel had to be to be pleasing to the LORD. The point of the law regarding slaves in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and the Book of the Covenant in Exodus is that ideally slavery should not exist in Israel,[4] and the law of the Kinsman redeemer that purchases a family member out of debt slavery or a piece of land that has been sold to settle debts reinforces this picture.[5]

                The legal material in the Pentateuch paints a picture of the gracious character of God, and the type of society that Israel was to be to please God and live with God in their midst. This material pointed Israel Godward, and was to transform them into a people of God. The material in the Pentateuch regarding slavery accepts that there is slavery in Israel, but points to the ideal that there should not be, and provides mechanisms to remove slavery from Israel grounded in God’s gracious act of delivering Israel from slavery. In cultural contexts that differ from Iron Age Israel to a greater or lesser degree, the legal material does not provide culturally contextualized mechanisms to remove slavery from a society, but shows the character of the LORD, who demands that it is removed for God’s blessing and presence to be in a society. The imperative of redemption that God delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt shows the character of God that has also redeemed us in Christ Jesus from bondages that effect societies and peoples throughout the world on multiple levels. The imperative of redemption that God has redeemed us so we should strive for the redemption of others calls for the development structure of grace through which the character of our gracious God can be manifested through our different societies.

                Bible Thoughts Today has briefly examined the legal material in the Pentateuch and has concluded that this material was promulgated to turn Israelite society Godward, so that it becomes a society in which God could dwell and which God could bless. From this, it concluded that helping people find a way of life that God blesses and in which they could live in God’s presence should be a primary goal of Christian development work. This is rooted in pursuing the aims and priorities of God in public and private life. If this is the case, then Christian development work should be rooted in evangelism and discipleship first and foremost. We then briefly examined a method with which to apply the individual, concrete and culturally specific laws in the Pentateuch’s legal material to different societies. To this end, we lifted up Rogerson’s “imperatives of redemption” and “structures of grace” as a method with which to apply the individual laws of the Pentateuch to culturally different contexts.

We hope you have found this past week’s reflections on the use of the Old Testament Law in transformational development useful in stimulating thought concerning the use of the Bible in contemporary society. If you did, we ask you to mention Bible Thoughts Today and recommend it to your social networking circle. This next week, the discussion will be guided, but more open ended, as we turn to the use of the Bible in contemporary evangelical thought, starting off with a discussion of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

---

                [1] Rogerson, J. W., and M. Daniel Carroll R. 2004. Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. eBook Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed July 25, 2011). 24-25

                [2] In Leviticus 25, the Hebrew slave is to be treated as a hired worker and is to be released in the Sabbath year

                [3] This imperative of redemption is not only used in Deut 15 and Lev 25, but in a number of places in the Pentateuch’s legal material.

                [4] Rogerson, 26.

                [5] This legal material is found in Lev 25.