Week 4—Words, Words, Words
The Widening of God’s Mercy, ch. 8-10: Jesus & the Law
This week we turn to the New Testament, as Richard Hays demonstrates the ways Jesus got into “good trouble” by overturning prevailing expectations, especially regarding the Old Testament law. He writes, “Jesus upset a lot of people. He came proclaiming good news of hope, liberation, and healing. But he also troubled many of his own people.”
Some background might be helpful here. In the 1st c Israel was an occupied nation, under Roman rule. They longed for the days of King David, when they were a strong and independent nation. It was easy then to see themselves as God’s chosen ones. But this new reality, as a weakened nation ruled by non-Jews, created a theological crisis—how were they to understand their identity as the “chosen people”? Related to that questions was the problem of purity. At the time of Jesus’ ministry, there were several groups that approached this questions differently.
Readers of the Gospels will be familiar with the scribes and pharisees– the religious elite. In these challenging times, for the most part they entered into a policy of appeasement with their Roman rulers, not directly opposing them as long as they were able to continue their Temple worship without impediment. So for these religious insiders, the Old Testament law was the source of their unique identity as God’s people. They sought to reinforce that identity by scrupulous attention to the law. The presence of Jewish law-breakers like tax-collectors and prostitutes was a challenge to that identity, The solution was to avoid any association with these sinners, so as not infected by their impurity. This is why Jesus is often denounced by the religious elite as one who associated with lawbreakers or the disreputable.
Another group not as prominent in the New Testament, but still present in the background are the Zealots. The Zealots did not look within the Jewish community for the source of their “impurity,” for them the problem clearly was the Romans– their Gentile overlords. Therefore, the solution to their identity question was to get rid of them—violently.
Less prominent in the New Testament are monastic communities like the Essenes. These groups framed the purity problem much more broadly– the problem is neither law breakers nor Roman rulers, but rather all of society. They believed our entire systems and institutions, both Jewish and Gentile, were corrupt. So the solution was to separate—to form monastic communities in the desert so as not to be infected. They would spend their days in contemplation and study (this is the group which preserved for us the Dead Sea Scrolls).
This brief summary reveals a couple of things all these groups had in common. They all see the impurity problem as “out there”– some “other”– whether that is lawbreakers, Romans, or society as a whole. And they all believe the solution is to distance oneself from the impure.
Jesus’ life and ministry demonstrate a sharply different movement. Jesus does not avoid the impure, whether Gentiles, tax-collectors, lepers, prostitutes or even Roman centurions. Rather that isolating them, Jesus draws near in love. Jesus draws near to the impure to infect them with his righteousness, to heal and restore. In so doing, he demonstrates a distinctly different relationship to the law. As we discussed earlier, Jesus does not overturn the Law, he fulfills it. He takes us beyond rote obedience to “rules” to a deeper commitment to the values and intent that lie behind the Law. Ironically, sometimes that means breaking the rules in order to enforce the intent.
Hays uses the Gospel stories of Jesus breaking the Sabbath law as perhaps the most striking examples of this. He writes that these Sabbath healings demonstrate the overriding principle that “there are times when the human desire for conscientious obedience to biblical law actually produces actions contrary to the spirit and intent of God’s commandments.” Healing on the Sabbath is breaking a rule, but fulfills the purpose and intent behind the rule.
Hays points out that in Mark 3:1-6 Jesus frames his healing of a man with the question: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” The silence of the scholars in response shows how the question challenged them to reflect on the purpose of the Sabbath law—for human wholeness and flourishing. I am touched by the way Hays reflects on this story with compassion and humility:
“It’s poignant to read the story from the standpoint of these faithful Pharisaic scribes. Here they are, faced with human suffering; their silence in the face of Jesus’s question may indicate that they are internally conflicted about how to answer. They feel unable to help or react in any way because of their strong beliefs and their determination to uphold the authority of scripture. And so their sacred space becomes a place of withholding and suffering.
“In the silence of these scribes in the synagogue, I see a reflection of my own longstanding reticence to speak about the question of same-sex relationships in the church: uncomfortably aware of aching human need but constrained by my interpretation of scripture from responding with grace or generosity. And so I kept silent.
“...the Pharisees believe they are seeking to practice righteousness—but their silence is self-condemning... Their strict adherence to their traditional interpretation of the law overrides any concern for the afflicted man who stands before them. That is why Jesus is both angry and ‘grieved at their hardness of heart.’ I now suspect that the Lord may have been also grieved with me.”
In summary, Hays writes, “In these Sabbath healing stories, then, Jesus acts with compassion and justifies what he has done by appealing to the wideness of God’s mercy. Healing on the Sabbath, he says, is not defiance of God’s law but rather an embracing of its deeper intent. Healing on the Sabbath is a decision to do good and to save life rather than to do harm. The command to rest on the Sabbath is not an arbitrary restriction; it is given for the sake of human well-being.... If the well-meaning attempt to honor God’s law leads to hardness of heart and blindness to the need of afflicted people, something has gone badly awry.”
Words, Words, Words
Language is funny. We tend to act like words can mean only one thing, as if there were a definitive, set, limited meaning for each word with no variation. When there's a misunderstanding, both sides tend to blame the other for not "saying it right" or "not listening to what I'm saying."
This week we look at two very similar clobber verses, both from the apostle Paul:
1 Cor. 6:9-10: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Tim. 1:9-10: We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
The Greek word translated "perverts" or "homosexual offenders" is arsenokoitai. But when we talk about New Testament Greek, we are not talking about modern Greek or even classical Greek. The language the New Testament is written in is Koine Greek. There are no native Koine Greek speakers today. If you've ever struggled to read Canterbury Tales or other literature written in Middle English, you have an idea what the relationship of Koine Greek is to modern Greek.
Which is where the work of linguists comes in. When people trained in linguistics set out to translate a document from an ancient language, they have to do a bit of spelunking to translate each word. They will look at the context to give clues as to the meaning. They will look at other documents from the same era to see how they use it. For most words in the New Testament, that gives translators enough clues that they can be reasonably sure they have made a fairly reliable expression of their meaning.
But with these two verses, we have a unique challenge. First of all, there's no context in the verses themselves we can use to understand Paul's intent—they are both just lists. Lists of Bad Things, but no context to know what the Bad Thing is. Even more problematic, Paul's use of arsenokoitai is idiosyncratic—the words are found nowhere else in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it's only use comes after Paul, from writers quoting these verses. We have none of the usual clues used to translate.
Like many Greek words, arsenokoitai is a compound word—a mosh up of two other words. It literally means "men bedders." Historically it has been translated various ways: "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "the brutal," "pervert." The first time it is translated "homosexual" is in the RSV translation in 1946. The documentary 1946 portrays the political factors that went into that decision.
The Koine Greek word malakoi is used in conjunction with arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9. It means "soft", but can be understood in three ways: 1. Literally soft, like fabric. 2. Morally soft or spineless, not having integrity. 3. An insult aimed at effeminate men. Some apply it to the passive (penetrated) partner in sexual relations. In Roman culture, married men having sex with boys– often a slave, or protégé–was common. The "one on top" was a way of showing ranking or superiority. The NIV and NRSV both translate it "male prostitutes"—we'll talk next week about the role pagan cult prostitution might play in the clobber verses.
As we noted last week, you can see the prevailing cultural patriarchy in the notion that being "treated like a woman" is associated with shame or humiliation. Scholar Michael Vasey writes that "homosexual activity was "strongly associated with idolatry, slavery, and social dominance… often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak."
The bottom line is that we simply don't know what arsenokoitai means— certainly not with enough certainty to denounce all same-sex relationships. For this reason, I like the Message translation: 1 Cor. 6:9: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex.
(for more on translating arsenokoitai, see David Gushee, Changing our Mind, p. 74-79, and Colby Martin, Unclobber ch 10).
What are the rules of sex? Are there any rules?
The fact that we are dismantling the clobber verses may seem like there are no rules, but that's not the case. It's not that sexual ethics don't matter. The way we live out our faith in our most intimate of relationships is significant. These discussions are important. But healthy sexual ethics go beyond just simplistic, arbitrary dos and don'ts. They challenge us to think deeper about how we care for and treat one another, about broad values and priorities. In many ways, that's more challenging than simply following the rules, but it also is more powerful.
Last week we looked at the relationship between the Old Testament laws and the
Sermon on Mount. We saw how in the sermon, Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but "fulfilling" it—calling us to think deeply about the value or meaning behind what often look like arbitrary and superficial rules. Jesus is moving us from rigid rule-based thinking to a more thoughtful ethic based on heart attitudes.
For example, imagine for a moment that you're in a long-term monogamous marriage. One day, your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know the rules of marriage, so I've decided not to cheat. That would be breaking a rule."
Think for a moment about how you'd feel about that interaction, then imagine this alternate scenario: Your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know that such a betrayal would break your heart. I love you so much, I can't imagine causing you that kind of pain. It would break my heart to do that. I would never risk our relationship that way."
Notice that the outward result—fidelity—is precisely the same either way. Your spouse's behavior doesn't change. But the inner heart attitude—the motives, the stance your partner has toward you—is radically different. I think most of us would prefer the second scenario.
Sexual ethics are to be based around the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God. Colby Martin suggests these "rules" for sexual ethics (Unclobber, p.165-166):
If you are straight:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
If you are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or queer:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
Changing Our Mind: A Historic Example
Many of our churches are beginning to have these discussions about queer inclusion. As we do, the issue of tradition may come up. Who are we to argue with 2000 years of Christian witness?
And yet, re-examination of long-held assumptions is part of Christian tradition, particularly for Protestants coming out of the Reformation. The Church has had several radical position shifts over the last two millennia. As we saw earlier in our exploration of Acts 15, in the 1st c. there was a radical shift from thinking of Christianity as something for Jews only to a broader movement that included both Jews and gentiles. In the 20th and even 21stc. we've seen shifts and debates within the church on women's roles.
A particularly revealing example is the shift in the In 17th & 18th c. on the issue of slavery. It was the source of intense debate—yet now is (for the most part) settled doctrine among Christians. That's a dramatic shift. How did that happen?
Let's begin by noting that the debates about slavery in the 17th & 18th c. were debates within Christianity. Both the proponents and the opponents of slavery identified as Christian. Like the discussion in Acts 15, both sides used Scripture in their arguments. But how they used Scripture was radically different. A side-by-side comparison of the texts usually cited by each side yields some interesting observations:
The proponents of slavery would cite verses like 1 Peter 2:18 Col. 3:22, Eph. 6:5-9, and Titus 2:9. All seemingly address slavery in a straightforward, rule-based way, e.g.: Eph. 6:5-9: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Abolitionists would have relatively few such verses they could draw from, the lone exceptions being the book of Philemon and Gal. 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slavenor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Rather, abolitionists would lean into verses that didn’t address slavery directly, but instead provided broad, overarching principles and values, e.g.: Gen. 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Luke 10:27: He answered: Love your neighbor as yourself.
Note that the verses cited by proponents all contain the word "slave." I believe they were written to an oppressed people, not to justify their oppression, but to reassure them that their bondage is not a barrier to belonging to the Kingdom. But the point is that these verses were able to be plucked out without thinking or considering the context. In contrast, most of the verses used by the abolitionists did not contain the word "slave." Most were not writing about slavery per se. They weren't specific rules and regulations about slavery. Rather, they were laying down broad, general principles—Kingdom values like love and compassion and equality.
Theologian Mark Noll writes, "Nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly out of the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems… and it demanded that sophisticated interpretive practice replace a commonsensical literal approach to the sacred text." -The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
How can these same principles inform the way that we read the clobber verses? How often are we drawn to the simple, the easy, the obvious? We love certainty and clarity. But life is not like that. Life is not simple. Life is complex, full of complicated problems with multiple factors. As appealing as they might be, simple answers to complex problems are usually wrong.
One of the ways we show the value we place on the Bible, our faith, and one another, is our willingness to engage hard questions thoughtfully with complex, nuanced thought. That doesn't mean everyone has to be a biblical scholar, but it does mean we are called to be thoughtful and prayerful about our lives and our relationships. About Scripture and about our faith. About living life in the Kingdom.
This week's clobber verses were fairly simple to dispense with. Next week we will tackle the most challenging of the clobber verses—Romans 1. Taking these tools with us, being willing to do the hard work, will be essential to this task
Come, Holy Spirit, come. Make us willing to do the hard work of loving well. Make us willing to think deeply about your word and the life you are calling us to. Help us move beyond simple answers to the deeper love, the deeper life, you have for us. Amen.