Theology in the Raw - A Review of The Widening of God's Mercy by Christopher Hays and Richard Hays

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

In this episode, I review the forthcoming book (releases Sept 10th): The Widening of God's Mercy by Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays. The book made quite a splash when it was announced last winter, since the book shows how Richard Hays changed his mind about same-sex marriage. He used to believe in traditional marriage, and has published well-known articles and book-chapters on it, but he now believes that God blesses same-sex marriage and this new book shows why. I recieved a pre-released copy of the book and have spent the last few weeks combing through it. This podcast review follows my written review, which you can find here: https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/review-of-the-widening-of-god-s-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. We have our two-day Exiles in Babylon conference on October 4th to 5th in Denver, Colorado. All the information is at theologyintheraw.com. You can attend live in person or you can stream it virtually. Again, theologyintheraw.com. Okay, so this is going to be a different sort of podcast. Usually I have conversations with various people, thinkers, humans, scholars, and so on and so forth. This is going to be a solo podcast where I give a review, a book review of a really important book that is about to come out called The Widening of God's Mercy, Sexuality Within the Biblical Story by doctors Christopher B. Hayes and Richard B. Hayes. When this book was first announced last, I want to say, winter in And so I contacted the publisher to see if I can get a pre-release copy. And they graciously sent me a pre-release copy of the book. And so I've spent the last three weeks or so, you know, reading the book.

And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it.

And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. And I was like, Oh, I'm going to read it. So I contacted the publisher to see if I can get a pre-release copy and they graciously sent me a pre-release copy of the book. And so I've spent the last three weeks or so reading through the book, rereading the book, digesting it, taking notes, interacting with it, and ultimately writing a pretty lengthy review of the book. This podcast review is basically a sort of audio conversational version of my written review, which is posted at centerforfaith.com. It's about a 9,000 word review. Well, it's about

3000 words in the main review. And then I have a whole subsection, an addendum where I list several other things that I wanted to interact with with this book. So again, if you're more of a reader, not a listener, then centerforfaith.com, go to the blog there and you can get access to the written review. And there I have extensive citations, footnotes, and other things with the review. Okay, so a few introductory points before we dive in. First of all, I'm a huge advocate for reading books for yourself. If you want to have an informed opinion about this particular book, don't just rely on my review of it.

I never want to post a review in having thoughts about a book you've never read. My goal here is that for those who are going to read the book, this review will serve as maybe a conversational partner, partner with your own thoughts on the book. So again, highly encourage you if you're interested in having an opinion about this book, go read the book. And I'm going to be posting a review of the book in the next few weeks. So again, highly encourage you if you're interested in having an opinion about this book, go read the book. Also, I believe reviewers of books have a moral responsibility to accurately represent

what the author is trying to say. In fact, I would consider it immoral bearing false witness to misrepresent a person or at the very least it's intellectually bearing false witness to misrepresent a person or at the very least, it's intellectually lazy or even dishonest to straw man someone's argument, summarizing it in such a way that only highlights the weakest points. You ignore the main argument. You just make the argument look as bad as you possibly can. I consider that immoral. argument, look as bad as he possibly can. I consider that immoral. So I know I'm also human. So I want you to know that I tried my hardest to truly understand what the authors, Christopher Hayes and Richard Hayes were trying to say in this book, trying to get inside

their argument, try to see it from the inside, try to give it the best faith reading. That was what I attempted to do. Now I'm human, maybe, and I might've failed with that in some part, but I want you to know that I am very aware of the need to accurate accurately represent somebody. And so I hope and pray that I have done that in this review. I also believe that there's always, almost always, some good that comes from books, even if you disagree with them. And as you'll see as this book, as this review unfolds, there are significant aspects of the book

that I do end up disagreeing with. And those will be clear in a moment. But I also begin this review by highlighting some good things because I think in almost every case, a book, even if you significantly disagree with the conclusion or even the argument, I'm sure there's some good things you can find from it. And I think that is, um, another by-product of exercising good faith evaluation of another person's work.

Um, there's nothing personal that I have in this review. Like I've never met, uh, Christopher or Richard Hayes. I did sit next to Richard Hayes once on a bus when I was a PhD student and we were going to some scholarly conference and they were shipping us from point A to point B. I vaguely remember it. All I remember is being scared out of my mind that here I am a first year PhD student in New Testament and I'm sitting next to the mighty Richard Hayes. And I was so scared to even say a word to him.

I just kind of turned to the other side and started talking to somebody else that was sitting next to me. So that's the extent of my interaction with Hayes, which was nothing. Basically I might've touched his shoulder or something accidentally. But as you'll see, I've been a huge fan, admirer

of his work over the years. Okay. So again, the book is titled The Widening of God's Mercy. And so if you don't know, I've kind of praised Richard Hayes already. I mean, Richard Hayes is one of the most prestigious New Testament scholars of the last four decades. My first exposure to Richard Hayes was actually reading his published doctoral dissertation titled The Faith of Jesus Christ, which interacted with a well-known New Testament debate about the interpretation of the Greek phrase, pistis Christu, faith of or in Jesus Christ. And that was a fascinating book. Another book, which is an absolute game changer in New Testament scholarship is The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul

by Richard Hayes, game changer in how we understand the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Another book that becomes more relevant to this recent book that Richard wrote, was titled The Moral Vision of the New Testament, published in 1994. It's a book on New Testament ethics that includes a chapter on homosexuality. And it's in that chapter that Hayes argued that the best reading of the Bible prohibits same-sex sexual relationships, both for early Christians and for the church today. sexual relationships, both for early Christians and for the church today. Now, why this forthcoming book has made such a splash is that in this book, it has been suggested at least in the promotion of the book that Richard Hayes has changed his mind. He now believes that the New Testament fully, to use his phrase, fully includes LGBTQ people, by which he means

that same-sex marriage is now blessed by God and therefore should be blessed by the church. Okay, so he's changed his mind from a historically Christian view of marriage and sexual ethics to a affirming view of marriage and sexual ethics as it pertains to same-sex sexual relationships. Dr. Richard Hayes co-wrote this book with his son, who's also an Old Testament scholar, Dr. Christopher Hayes, who teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary. And so, it's a duly authored book, but they lay out in the introduction, the introduction sort of duly authored, but then they lay out who's writing which sections. So, the book is largely divided into seven chapters on the Old Testament and eight chapters on the New Testament, and they make it clear that Christopher Hayes wrote the sections on the Old Testament,

yeah, Richard Hayes wrote the sections on the New Testament, and then they come together, write a final chapter, which summarizes the main argument of the book. And they apply it to the quote, full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations, unquote today, page 214. That's going to get really annoying if I just keep listing the page numbers of my quotes, because I will quote them extensively. Again, I want to make sure I'm representing them correctly. them extensively. Again, I want to make sure I'm representing them correctly. So, I'll just leave you to, you can go find the written review, which is free online at centerforfaith.com if you want all the specific references to the page numbers. Okay, and then Richard concludes with a brief epilogue where he explains his change of mind and how his current position relates to his previous work. Okay, so the central argument of the book is that God often changes his mind in Scripture.

He changes his mind about various laws and customs, whether to carry out judgment on disobedience, and most importantly, he changes his mind on which kind of people are accepted in the covenant community. For instance, you know, God used to reject eunuchs and uncircumcised foreigners from being full participants in the community of God in the Old Testament. And now in the New Testament, foresaw or prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 56, now, you know, eunuchs and uncircumcised foreigners are accepted in God's covenant community. Actually, uncircumcised foreigners weren't really predicted in the Old Testament,, eunuchs and uncircumcised foreigners are accepted in God's covenant community.

Actually, uncircumcised foreigners weren't really predicted in the Old Testament, but eunuchs certainly were. Isaiah 56 makes it clear that in the sort of the new age, you know, God will accept eunuchs and others whom he formerly had rejected. So Christopher says, quote, Scripture reflects that God's grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change His mind and His approaches to the world to broaden it further.

So in the same way that God now accepts foreigners, uncircumcised foreigners, and eunuchs, Christopher argues that God also now fully accepts LGBTQ people eunuchs play a, I guess I would say a particularly significant role in their argument because as Christopher writes as quote castrated men, they were quote a sexual minority. And he writes, you know, quote, if conservatives today find scriptural warrant for excluding sexual minorities, how much more did religious leaders in Isaiah's time have warrant to exclude eunuchs, unquote. So there's a strong comparison between ancient eunuchs and people today who would identify as sexual minorities. I do want to, I'm going to say my critique in bulk for, uh, in a little bit. I first summarize the argument and, and highlight some pros that I found to be helpful. Um, here I would say there, there's a, um, I think a problem with correlating Unix and

calling them sexual minorities. Well, today, when we call somebody a sexual minority, we typically mean somebody whose sexual attractions are in the minority. So people who are in the minority or bi sexually attracted because they are much smaller in number compared to opposite sex attracted people, they are in the sexual minority. But the term sexual there has to do with sexual attraction. The problem though with the compared out the UNIX is the only thing that I mean UNIX were either born with some sort of bi-sexual attraction or they're not.

They're not attracted to the same sex. They're attracted to the UNIX is the only thing that, I mean, UNIX were either born with some sort of biological defect in their sexual anatomy or they're castrated, their minority position had to do with their biological sex. They didn't fit the norm of what a biological man would look like, again, due to perhaps castration or some kind of deformity in their sexual anatomy. of sexual minority, that has to do with more biological sex that they weren't treated. They were considered unix were considered to be less than men. Like, like you weren't

really a manly man because you weren't a full man from their ancient perspective. So there is that sort of, um, almost like a gender minority. They would be considered to be a gender minority in that sense. And so that's, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the perspective. So there is that sort of, um, almost like a gender minority. They would be considered to be a gender minority in that sense. Um, but to map Unix on modern day, uh, I would say gay people or even trans people I think is, is not really an accurate analogy, but anyway, that this is part of their argument. So to summarize the author's main argument, they write, quote, this is going to be a bit of kind of an extensive quote here, but it captures the main heart of their argument.

They say this, quote, the many biblical stories of God's widening mercy invite us to re-envision how God means us to think and act today with regard to human sexuality. 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 God's household." Quoting Ephesians 2.19, unquote. So, yeah, in this review, I'm going to highlight some pros, then I'm going to highlight some cons, and then I do include a lengthy add denim where I discuss several other noteworthy aspects

of the book. We'll see if I cover all of those in this audio review. I'll see how much time we have left. I don't want to make this, you know, annoyingly too long. So let's begin with some pros hands down. My favorite thing about the book is that it exudes a desire to love LGBTQ people. Again, I've never personally met either author, sat next to one of them. But if the tone of the book represents their hearts, then they appear to be very zealous about seeing LGBTQ

people flourish in the church. And they rightly, I think, express righteous indignation over the ways that LGBTQ people have been dehumanized by Christians. I am very eager to point that out as well. While I will theologically diagnose the problem differently than they do, I did find myself resonating so much with the heart behind the book. And I mean, for what it's worth, I would say I too advocate for the full welcome and inclusion of people who experience different sexual orientations. Like we're going to define those terms differently, but like every square inch of one's humanity is fully welcomed. All of anybody is fully welcomed into the kingdom of God. I would just disagree with the authors about what

sexual ethic followers of Jesus are welcomed and included into, regardless of their sexual orientation. Okay. So if that, you might need to, you know, go back 15 seconds, relisten to that, just to make sure you're clear about what I'm trying to say there. It'll be clear as it goes on what I mean there. But in terms of the idea of full welcome and full inclusion, I can totally use those same phrases as well. Again, we're just going to define sexual ethics and marriage differently. Another pro is that the book is very readable. I mean, these authors are top tier scholars, okay? And yet they manage to write a book that a popular audience will be able to understand. And this is no small feat. I mean, some people don't

realize how hard it is for somebody to be steeped in scholarship, to be reading high-powered scholarship, to end up digesting this and end up writing in a way that's understandable to a wider audience. And so, the widening of God's mercy really does succeed in tackling complex topics and scholarly issues in a clear and winsome way. I also found several chapters to be biblically compelling. I mean, Richard's chapters on Jesus, so chapters 8, 10, 11 in particular, were stunning. Jesus certainly did upset people by challenging their nationalistic ideologies and by welcoming foreigners and outcasts. That in and of itself,

that is absolutely true and good and beautiful, and we should appreciate that. Stories of Jesus dining with tax collectors and sinners are well known, and Richard does a great job narrating the scandal of those events and that message. Jesus' encounters with people like the Samaritan woman in John 4, the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15, the chief tax collector Zacchaeus in Luke 19. I mean, these all do powerfully illustrate, quote, how Jesus' teaching and actions encourage His followers to think more broadly about the expansive grace of Israel's God." That is a very good and accurate and powerful statement in and of itself.

I also found Christopher's deep dive into the often neglected story of Zalophahad's daughters. You ever heard of Zalophahad's daughters? I read that all the time, Zalofa had daughters. Numbers chapter 27, one to three. When's the last time you read Numbers chapter 27? When is that time you read the book of Numbers? Okay. Let's start there. So this is an often neglected unknown story, but it's really a powerful one. And the story truly does show that, quote, the ability to hear the cries of the oppressed is a quintessential attribute of the God of Israel, who from the beginning of the nation's story heard his people crying out under oppression, Exodus 2.24, and God took notice of them." Unquote. Nobody should disagree with that statement there.

That is absolutely true. So I appreciated, I appreciated all of this, the overarching way in which Christopher showed that while the Old Testament was mostly ethnocentric, okay, focused on the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, you do see seeds of multi-ethnicity sown along the way in the Old Testament, and he highlights this really well, which end up bursting into full bloom in the New Testament. Okay, so I think all of that was good and spot on, and I'm really thankful that they laid out that beautiful narrative so eloquently. Okay, let's get into some cons. I would say many of the book's significant problems, in my opinion, emerge as the authors begin to apply

their argument about the inclusiveness of God when they start to apply this to Christian debates about marriage and sexual ethics today. In fact, one of my biggest critiques, probably my main critique is simply that they don't apply their argument to marriage and sexual ethics. I mean, the book contains no definition of marriage. The word marriage is hardly even mentioned. I keep a running tab whenever I read a book, especially if I'm reading it critically of key ideas that I'm looking for. So, I wrote down every time the word marriage occurred and it hardly even occurs. And sometimes just in passing, when not really talking about marriage, it's just the word ends up popping up. So, there's no

definition of marriage. There's no biblical argument about how God intends for His followers to faithfully steward their sexuality. So, there is a passing reference to what I would consider a rather secular notion that any sexual expression is fine as long as it's not, quote, abusive or otherwise harmful. Okay. Sure. I mean, from a ethical, a Christian ethical standpoint, at least a sexual relationship shouldn't be abusive or harmful, but that's not the totality of how we determine whether a sexual relationship or sexual expression aligns with the creator's design.

But that's again, that's, that's a very secular assumption is as long as it's not abusal, it's consensual, it's not harmful. Bam. You can do whatever you want. I just don't think that's a particularly Christian ethic of sexuality, but that's want to beg the question, that's, I guess, what they're maybe protesting. But they don't really protest it, they kind of assume it. The authors also write about what they call covenanted unions between people of the same sex that they should be faithful and exclusive, just as opposite sex marriages should be.

Okay, so that's another statement where they kind of toy with some aspect of sexual ethics, but these are just play a fringe role in the argument as a whole. They give no theological articulation of what marriage is or what sex is for. There is no robust marriage or sexual ethic in the book. There's no theology of marriage or sexual ethic, which I think is a rather large lacuna, a large gap for a book that depends on a revised marriage and sexual ethic. Their entire argument depends on a revised marriage and sexual ethic for their arguments to succeed. And so I think it's a bit of a problem that they don't have any marriage or sexual ethic

upon which the entire argument rests. Instead, the authors rely on popular catchphrases like, quote, full inclusion or quote, fully or welcomed fully or quote, excluding and harming people to do the heavy lifting. But I mean, the current sexuality debates are not about, or let me say, it shouldn't be about whether gay people are to be accepted. Like that should never be where the debate lies. The debate is about what is the marriage and sexual ethics that they or all people are being accepted into?

Let me say that again, because it's really important. The current sexuality debates are not about whether gay people are being accepted into. Let me say that again, cause it's really important. The current sexuality debates are not about whether gay people are to be accepted. The debate is about what is the marriage and sexual ethic that people are being accepted into as they're accepted into the covenant community. What are the standards of sexual expression that the community requires for all people that they're accepting into

their community or specifically one of the biggest, I would say the most important question in this debates about a theology of sexuality or a Christian sexual ethic is this is sex difference an essential part of what marriage is to me that that's like the fundamental question. Everything else kind of flows from there. Like if that question isn't answered, then you've kind of lost the argument like that. That is a fundamental part of the argument is sex difference. An essential part of what marriage is a historically Christian view of marriage and say, yes, when we talk about marriage, that is by definition, the coming together into one

flesh union of two biologically sexed, sexually different humans. That's the starting point of any Christian theology of marriage and sexuality. If you affirm same sex relationships and say they're blessed by God, then you would have to say, no, sex difference is not an essential part of what marriage is. And then you have to show like from scripture, why sex difference isn't an essential part of what marriage is. Or maybe it was important in Genesis one or two, but isn't, you know, just to populate the earth, but isn't important today. You'd have to show that maybe there's been a shift in this understanding of marriage within scripture, or you can say, no, the Bible affirms sex difference in marriage, but we don't need to do that anymore. The Bible is outdated and isn't speaking to what we're talking about today. You have to at least

show an awareness of the definition of marriage that we need to bring scripture to bear on how we're defining this key concept. It is the thing we're talking about in this conversation. So this question about sex, difference, and marriage, it's never raised, never answered. It doesn't seem like the authors are even aware of how significant this question is. The authors reduce the theological debate about same-sex marriage to quote, they say, endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disprove of same-sex relations." And they find arguments about these six passages to be, quote, superficial and boring. So what they're referring to here are the prohibitions regarding same-sex sexual relationships, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6,

1 Timothy 1. And also I think they're including here, uh, the story about Sodom and, and Gomorrah in Genesis. And this will, okay. This might come out later in the review to think that the theological debate about marriage and same sex relations is, is really reduced to those six passages to me that that it's a bit naive, I think. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I, so let me say this. I appreciate their reluctance to just relegate the debate to, you know, these six passages of scripture. Okay. So a couple of things. First of all, it is a little too convenient, I think, to wave a dismissive hand at the very passages that directly address the very kinds of relationships

that the authors claim have been wrongly interpreted by the historic global church for 2000 years. Okay. But that's not even my main beef here. I get it. I get when people are like this Greek word and that Malachoi and our Sinocotus and Leviticus and Romans and you know, I'm just so tired of these debates. Let's move on to a different kind of argument. Okay. I, okay. I get that. But again, the main theological question is not about the six passages. The main theological question is about God's design for marriage. What is marriage? What is marriage for? Okay. So they, and so that's my biggest pushback really is that they ignore the whole witness

of scripture and how it talks about marriage. Again, the fundamental theological and ethical question in this debate is whether sex difference is an essential part of what marriage is. And this question is never mentioned, never answered. I mean, I was, I was honestly, I was any book on same sex marriage, whether it's defending a traditional view and affirming view, whatever, I'm always eagerly waiting for how they're going to interpret Genesis one and two and how they're going to, you know, other new Testament readings of Genesis one and two, like in Mark 10, Matthew 19, even Ephesians five is, it's, I think less significant, but still plays a role. I mean, Paul is interacting with the meaning of marriage as it relates

to Genesis, uh, two in particular. So I, as I was reading, I'm waiting for, okay, where's the chapter on Genesis one or two? Where's the chapter on gent Matthew 19 four to six. And there was basically nothing. Matthew 19 is probably in my mind, if you're going to like way out, what's the most important passage on this debate, which I don't like reducing things to just verses and passes. Like I do like to look at theological themes and, and so on. But if we were going to isolate one single passage, I think Matthew 19 four to six is the most important. Here's where Jesus

interprets Genesis one and two. He splices together Genesis two,24 with Genesis 1.27. Genesis 1.27, you know, God, have you not read, Jesus says God created the male and female, quoting Genesis 1.27. And then he splices that with Matthew 19, or sorry, splices that with Genesis 2.24. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother

to be joined to his wife. And the two, the male and the female will become one flesh. And Jesus, just His old ethical movement there, He goes back to the creation account to reaffirm the creator's design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2. And so this isn't just a 1 and 2, Genesis 1 and 2 thing. This is the heart behind Jesus's ethic, which moves toward God's original design of creation to find a foundation for God's vision for a new creation ethic." So I was waiting for how they're going to handle Matthew 19, and lo and behold, the

authors never mention, never mention Matthew 19, four to six. I do find it telling that the authors think that, quote, the most significant objection to our interpretation of the God of the Bible is one that simply says this God of widening mercy whom you describe is not one that I have ever experienced, unquote. That's, they think that's their, the main objection to the argument. I was just, I guess, under impressed with that. I do think it's telling that they think that's the main objection. I would say the most significant objection to their interpretation is that they offer a revision of the historically Christian view of marriage and sexual ethics without providing any argument for a revision

of marriage and sexual ethics. I don't mean to be cheeky or like, I, I, I think that's very accurate that their entire argument rests on a revision of marriage and sexual ethics. Yet they provide zero argument for a revision of marriage and sexual ethics. I know you've heard of me talk about this before, but over a year and a half ago, I started drinking AG one and I haven't looked back since. I really care about my health, but the supplement industry, it can be super tricky to navigate. I mean, there's so many different brands that advertise all these big promises, but

AG1 is backed by actual research and the entire formula has been tested for efficacy, not just its individual ingredients. One scoop of AG1 a day provides you with essential nutrients and promotes my gut health so I know I'm giving my body the best. So every morning I typically start with AG1 or if I'm fasting AG1 will be the first thing that I use to break my fast. And I seriously notice the difference. I feel more alert, my energy levels are up, and I can live with the peace of mind that I'm giving my body the nutrition that it needs. Even though I already eat fairly healthy,

there's certain nutrients that can be really hard to get through diet alone. With every scoop of AG1, I know I'm getting the nutrient diversity my body needs from a variety of whole food sourced ingredients. If there's one product I trust to support my whole body health it's AG1 and that's why I've partnered with them for so long. So start investing in your health with AG1. Try AG1 and get a bottle of vitamin D3 K2 and five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase at drinkag1.com forward slash T-I-T-R. That's drinkag1.com forward slash T-I-T-R. Check it out. Second con about the book, the main argument of the book,

we'll call it a trajectory argument, okay? That things change throughout the scriptures, that we see a trajectory moving from exclusion of certain people to inclusion of certain people. So even if there's no explicit mention of an inclusion of same-sex couples in the New Testament, we see a trajectory moving in that direction. Okay. This is a well-known argument for those who have read, you know, various works in sexuality debates. I'm not sure who the first scholar was to propose it. It was pretty popular, I would say, in the 90s and early 2000s,

especially the 90s. And it started, it kind of faded out in the early 2000s because William Webb 2000s because William Webb wrote a book called slave women and homosexuals published in 2001, which is a well-known book length treatment, simple specifically just on this argument. It's a, it's a pretty, it's readable, but it's, it's an extremely thorough evaluation from, from so many different angles of the trajectory argument. Okay. And others have examined the trajectory argument as well and found it to be a pretty weak argument for affirming same sex marriage, which is why I think is I kind of look at the landscape of scholarship, where it's been, where it's going. I don't see too many affirming scholars using this argument anymore. I think it's largely because of William Webb's work and, and others that

have kind of shown time and time again, that this just doesn't, this argument just doesn't work. I mean, it's certainly, okay. So let's, let's look at the trajectory argument. I mean, it's certainly true that many things change between the old new Testament. I mean, food laws, circumcision requirements, the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles, eunuchs, Samaritans, and again, a lot of things they point to in their argument, but there is no evidence. Can I say no evidence? There's no evidence of a similar trajectory within Scripture where sex difference is no longer part of marriage or where prohibitions of same-sex sexual relationships

are reversed. There is no evidence of any kind of trajectory moving away from what Scripture consistently says about sex difference in marriage and the permissibility of same-sex sexual relationships. So, yes, some laws change, but not all laws change. We can't just point to some changed laws, or even some changes of God's mind. We'll get that in a bit. We can't just point to some changed laws and assume that other laws of our choosing have changed as well. There's simply no evidence of a scriptural trajectory moving away from sex, difference, and marriage, or same-sex sexual relationships being accepted by God. In fact, if there is a biblical trajectory for sexual ethics, it moves towards greater strictness, not greater openness.

I mean, polygamy, for instance, was treated a bit more leniently in the Old Testament. It was kind of regulated, not banned. But we see the New Testament moving back toward the creational ideal of one man and one woman. Again, Matthew 19, four to six. Divorce too was, you know, there's debates about this, but it seems to be a bit more lenient in the Old Testament, allowed. I mean, Deuteronomy 24 seems pretty lenient. Was it Ezra nine and 10? Ezra commands divorce. But Jesus explicitly tightens in Deuteronomy's looser divorce laws in Matthew

19. Adultery condemned across both testaments, but in the New Testament, Jesus says that even lust is adultery in Matthew 5. So, when the Bible revisits its vision for marriage and sexuality, it moves towards a stricter ethic, not a more permissive one. Now to be fair to Hayes and Hayes, they don't claim that they're presenting any new ideas in the book. Okay. I mean, they say on page two 18, we're not really introducing anything new here. Okay. At the beginning of the book, they say, although we are informed by our years of scholarship, there are few new or controversial ideas here from the standpoint of biblical studies. I would very much question that,

but, but okay. So they're not saying, Hey, here's a new argument. No one's ever thought about. Okay. Fair enough. But here's the deal. The book never addresses the mini or even seems to show an awareness of the many counter arguments to the trajectory argument. I mean, so Webb's book is never mentioned. So, I mean, it's one thing to say, Hey, look, this is a popular level book. We're not going to bog it down with endless interactions with other scholars. Okay. I get that. There's a place for that. That's one thing, but it's quite another thing to repeat an old and often refuted argument without showing any awareness of how the argument has been treated in the scholarly discussion. Like you can do that without endlessly citing every scholar in the field or interacting

with Joe Schmuller over here or Carol Kay over there. I didn't make that up by the way. I don't know why he said Carol Kay, but like they don't show an awareness of the actual arguments or counter arguments. They just state it as if this argument holds weight. So in summary, The Widening of God's Mercy, it's a book that makes no theological defense of same-sex marriage, chooses not to deal with the passages that prohibit same-sex sexual relationships. And instead it rehearses an old argument and doesn't address how that argument has been refuted time and time again. So essentially, if I can reduce the argument to one kind of big idea, the argument in the book says this,

since God changed his mind about foreigners and eunuchs, therefore sex difference is no longer part of what marriage is. It's that therefore, and this isn't a quote from them, please hear me. This is me kind of trying to summarize the intrinsic logic of their argument. Now, again, they never even talk about sex difference in marriage. It's not like that's on the surface of what they're arguing for. Like they don't mention it, but essentially that's what they're arguing for. So God don't mention it, but essentially that's what they're essentially, that's what they have to be arguing for. So God changes his mind about your foreigners, unix marriages redefined. I just, I just don't find that compelling at all.

Okay. Third, while I appreciate Richard's description of Jesus hanging out with tax collectors, prostitutes, sinners, okay, again, those sections are beautiful. Very well written, very powerful. And who can deny that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners? Okay, this isn't really... So this isn't really a controversial point, for sure. He doesn't always make a distinction, though, between sinners and sin. I mean, so, yes, it's obvious Jesus whined and dined with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners, but this

obviously doesn't mean he supports tax collecting, prostitution, or sin. And so, Richard's clear about the ethics of tax collecting. For instance, he says it was, quote, an oppressive tax farming operation, unquote, and that tax collectors who decided to follow Jesus would need to repent by, quote, the generous setting right of economic wrongs, unquote. Okay? So sinners, according to Richard, who are accepted by Jesus are still called to repentance. So that's good.

But this clear ethical distinction between tax collectors and tax collecting disappears when Hayes tries to map these gospel stories onto modern questions about sexual minority people and sexual ethics. It's assumed throughout the book that God blesses same-sex sexual relationships and marriage, but the authors offer no biblical defense of how or why. God's blessing is just assumed under the umbrella of catchphrases like full inclusion and fully welcome. Okay. My fourth and final con in terms of the main part of my review, is that the authors argue, well, let me summarize, let me summarize. It has to do with their view of the Holy Spirit enlightening the church with regard to the wideness of God's mercy in scripture. Okay. Let me, let me try to summarize exactly what they are arguing here with the Holy Spirit and how He opens our eyes to fresh readings of Scripture,

and then I'll go to my critique. Okay, so the authors argue that the New Testament does not bring, quote, complete and final closure to God's revelation, unquote, but that, quote, closure to God's revelation," unquote, but that, quote, the Holy Spirit will continue to lead the community of Jesus' followers into new and surprising truths. Okay? So, they believe that the modern church should not just listen to what God has said through Scripture in the past, but that we should join God by listening to what His Spirit might be saying to us today. Okay. So they say, quote, any religious tradition that fails to grow and respond to the ongoing work of the Holy spirit will stagnate and die. Okay. And all of God's charismatic said, amen. They imply that any church that doesn't quote fully accept all people of differing sexual orientations by affirming same-sex marriage, they argue that they're not basically listening

to the Holy Spirit. These churches should quote, repent of the narrowness of their earlier visions and explore a new way of listening to the story that scripture tells about the widening scope of God's mercy." For the sake of argument, I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of the argument that God's Spirit might open up our eyes to fresh revelations. I don't even, I've never personally had a vision where Jesus is standing in my bathroom or whatever. Some people do. I know there's many, like, Muslims that have visions of Jesus and end up coming to Christ, okay? So, that would be a fresh revelation. That would be one form of a fresh revelation. I have never audibly heard God speak to me, but some people say they have, and maybe

that's true. Maybe the Holy Spirit is speaking in an audible way or in a very real way today. Like, okay, I can't…Scriptural speaking, I think that's very possible. I do think any further revelation of God has to follow Scripture, or at least even the storyline, the trajectory of the storyline of Scripture has to resonate with Scripture, not go against Scripture. Okay, so let's assume that God is speaking through His Spirit in fresh ways today along these lines. uh, well and good, but the way Hayes and Hayes employ this argument, I think is profoundly ethnocentric. Okay. So the global church is growing exponentially in the global south, Southeast Asia, China, and the middle East actually, some explosive growth and elsewhere

in mostly majority world countries. Almost all of these churches believe that sex differences is an essential part of what marriage is and that all sexual relationships outside this covenant of marriage are sin. So the argument and the widening of God's mercy implies that all of these non-Western Christians are not listening to the Holy Spirit who is allegedly opening up fresh ways to read scripture. They seem to be unaware of this, I would say, major problem in this really central argument to their book. I mean, the ethical viewpoint advocated for in this book is held primarily by a relatively small number of mostly white affluent modern Christians living in the West. Is the Holy Spirit really speaking much more clearly to Western Christians and those in the majority world?

Hmm. It's a bold, it's bold. I don't know if that's accurate. Uh, so Christopher, he, he bemoans the fact that the church is in decline. He says the church is in decline. Well, I mean, he has to be thinking of the Western church only. Like I, I just, I, I, I felt like an editor or somebody would have caught that. Like at least put the churches in decline in the West because it's not in decline in the global South in Africa, Southeast Asia, middle East. I looked up some of the fast Christianity countries with the fastest Christian growth. This is a, I think it's a, this is like a 10 year old study. So this could change. I don't think it's led up in these areas, but the top countries where Christianity is growing

exponentially is in Nepal. It was number one, China, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. So I would say it's kind of bold for Christopher to argue that quote, that shirt, the church is in decline because of its lack of curiosity and hardness of heart, unquote. I mean, not only is this a very Western perspective, but it also implies that Christianity is explosive growth and hard to reach places is being carried out by hard hearted Christians who aren't listening to the Holy spirit because they're not affirming really. I mean, the authors of the widen of God's mercy essentially call on the non-Western church to quote, repent of its narrow, fearful vision, unquote, and quote, lack of curiosity and hardness of heart, unquote, bold.

And so we come full circle. I think the authors paint a beautiful picture of the widening of God's mercy, mercy, which includes the poor, the outcast, the marginalized, indeed many of the same people who live throughout the majority world, but these same people end up being scolded and shamed for believing that sex difference is part of what marriage is. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able

to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going good scholarly debate, loves to wrestle with stuff, isn't concerned about whatever theological conclusion people land on. I just, I love wrestling with the text scripture and not thinking, well, where will this lead us the illogical? I just want to wrestle with the text and what is going on here? So, uh, knowing that, you know, Richard Hayes is one of the top scholars in the world. And I wasn't as familiar with Christopher's work. Uh, but I was, the academic part of me was excited when the book was announced. I'm like, how much more thoughtful is this going to be? I mean, he's, you know, he's got a few decades, you know, of work between his previous work in this topic and now, and, and, and he's a brilliant scholar and this is going to be a rich, engaged, you know,

he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he's going to be a great, he now, and, and, and he's a brilliant scholar and this is going to be a rich, engaging, scintillating scintillating, scintillating. I forget how you pronounce that exercise. So I was excited to read it. I mean, when, when the book was announced last winter, I mean, so many conservative Christians race the bash it on social media. And I was like, that just gets Christian. He's such a bad name. When Christians are

bashing a book that hasn't, isn't even out for another eight months or whatever, like you haven't read it yet. It's not even like final. It's not even like printed yet. And you're already bashing it. Like that's just, is, doesn't, that's not a good look for people that are claiming to be intellectually honest. So anyway, so I was excited. I was like, ah, let's, I'm excited to wrestle with this. Maybe there's, maybe there's a new argument for affirming same-sex marriage that we haven't seen yet. Like again, my, my church hats, like, Ooh, you know, I don't know. I don't know. This is good. I don't think I don't agree with this viewpoint is just going to convince people. There's, there's that side

of me, but the scholarly side of me is like, Oh, I can't wait to engage this. Like this is going to be a really challenging read. I'm sure. I was deeply curious how they're going to argue for their, um, for affirming same-sex marriage. And honestly, to my surprise, I was really shocked that there is no fresh argument. They didn't say it's a fresh argument. So I don't want to fault them for that. I was kind of expecting that until they opened up the book saying this isn't anything new, but it just showed almost like an unawareness of so much that's been going on in the scholarly discussion in questions of sexuality and marriage. So the book is, I mean, again, in summary, a repack, it's simply repackaged an old trajectory

argument to make a questionable, questionable logical leap that since God welcomes foreigners, eunuchs, tax collectors, and sinners, therefore sex difference is no longer part of what marriage is and that therefore is just doing a lot of work there. Okay. That is my, the main heart of my review of the book. If you go and do read my written review, you'll see that I included, uh, Oh, how long is this? I don't know. It's like, it's like a 6,000 word addendum where I discuss several other things in the book that I either found to be uncompelling, unclear, or I would I'm not sure if I want to work through all of these here. Let me just, let me do this on the fly a bit.

Okay. So the first point I raise is that there's a lack of interaction with or apparent awareness of scholarship in the sexuality conversation. Okay. I've already kind of hinted at this. I mean, right when I was in college, I was in the college of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, apparent awareness of scholarship in the sexuality conversation. Okay. I've already kind of hinted at this. I mean, right when I got the book, I just

went to the, I went to the back and looked at, okay, what's your bibliography look like? And I was shocked that there was no mention of almost all the major works in the conversation of around same-sex marriage, same-sex sexual relationships and the Bible. I mean, books by, I mean, Robert Gagnon's not mentioned. That's kind of a big deal. Darren Snyder, Belusak, William Webb, Stephen Holmes, many other scholars that have addressed this on the, on the, on the more traditional side, they're not even mentioned. There's no, there's no kind of book is this? You're not, you're, you're making a, you've shifted your leading new Testament scholar, at least in terms of Richard Hayes, you you're known for writing significant works, defending traditional marriage. Um, in the past, you've

changed your view of the world of marriage. You've changed your view of the world of marriage. You've changed your view of the world of marriage. You've changed your view of the world of marriage. you're known for writing significant works, defending traditional marriage in the past, you've changed your view. And there's zero mention of the scholarly work that's been done since then, since your previous work. Now, okay, so they do say upfront, okay, they say upfront that while they're scholars, they are writing to quote, lay people in the pews. And they even say the reader will find

few footnotes. Okay. They say this on page four. Okay. I get that. That's fair, but I guess that's not my main concern here. My main concern is not that they're, you must explicitly interact with Robert Gagnon's 500 pages, but like, I'm not even saying that they just don't seem to be even aware of these works or the arguments that pro propose pretty major challenges to the argument they're, they're making. And also it's not like haze and haze neglect scholarship altogether. I mean, they cite car, Carl Bart's church dogmatics. There's many, there's several articles they cite that are in peer reviewed academic journals and academic books.

They even cite an article written in German. They cite an unpublished PhD dissertation by Richard Gardner. I mean, and many other scholarly works. It's not heavily footnoted or end noted. It's just end notes, not footnotes. I'll just keep saying footnotes. But I mean, they have like chapter 12, I'm just scanning right here. Chapter 12 has 15 end notes, not footnotes. I'll just keep saying footnotes, but I mean, they have like chapter 12. I'm just scanning right here. Chapter 12 has 15 and notes chapter 11 has 13 and notes and some of these end notes.

Yeah. I mean, they're citing EP Sanders in a scholarly work. Paula Fredrickson, a scholarly work. They have lengthy notes. Like it's not like, it's not like, you know, remember Rob Bell's love wins when it's like, he says something that's super controversial and he'll say like Ezekiel 38. And that's like his reference, you know, like, no, I mean, this, this is like, it's not extensively footnoted, but it's got thick. I mean, look at that. So like chapter nine, the end note too, goes into some detailed thing about the Mishnah and citing, citing the Mishnah over in chapter 10 footnote to popular little book with no scholarly interaction. There, there's plenty of scholarly interaction. So within that zero interaction with the key works in this conversation, they also, okay. So that's when it comes to biblical studies, scholarship, whatever. Also, the way they talk about, you know They also, okay, so that's when it comes to biblical

studies, scholarship, whatever. Also, the way they talk about sexuality and same sex sexuality, I mean, it just, it seems really basic or even, it just seems like they haven't done a lot of reading and even the field of sexuality. I mean, they refer to LGBTQ people as quote, a fixed class of human beings on page 207. I mean, some, that's common in like popular kind of rhetoric blogs and stuff for people to say stuff like that. But for scholars writing on sexuality to say a fixed class of human beings, I mean, that first of all, I mean, it ignores the fluidity and complexity of transgender identities. This is another sub critique I have.

I don't want to make too much of this, but like they do use LGBTQ as like a synonym for same-sex attraction. Like the book is on sexuality. They do mention once like, Hey, what about transgender identities? We're not going to get into that. I'm like, okay, that's fair. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. synonym for same-sex attraction. Like the book is on sexuality. They do mention once like, Hey, what about transgender identities? We're not going to get into that. I'm like, okay, that's fair. Yeah. I mean, my last book didn't deal with transgender identities, but I also didn't use the acronym LGBTQ because T includes transgender identity. So they seem to be unaware. And if, if, if this is my perception, could be wrong. They seem to be unaware of the vast differences between the T and L G B between transgender identities and experiences and sexuality. Like they, again, they, they use just linguistically LGBTQ as like a synonym for same sex sexuality. Um. They do. I think it's on page 19 where they

do get into the definitions and that page page 19, that's actually really good. But then the rest of the book, they just kind of like, again, associate LGBTQ with same-sex sexuality without seeming to recognize that the T in LGBTQ presents a whole new set of questions and issues and experiences and identities and so on and so forth. They also have for the, if those who care, I mean, there's a debate between like essentialism and constructivism. Is sexuality just simply innate and biologically rooted or is it socially constructed? Big debate within sexuality scholars, you know, on the more fluidity, socially constructivist side, you have, you know, Hannah, Hannah Blank, Lisa Diamond, Rebecca Jordan Young, and many others on that side. So yeah, they clearly

take a very strong essentialist side without, but it's okay, whatever. That's your view. A lot of people have that view. But again, the way they talk about it, it just seems I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point. I think that's a That's like a category that's not even entertained. In fact, I don't listen to this, but I think if they did listen to me say that, they probably, that's just not possible. Like this is not, I'm like, well, actually it is like, I'm not prescribing that by any stretch of the imagination, but the thing that sexuality is sexually so rigid and fixed that if you're gay, then the only relationship we could ever have is somebody that is the same sex and the possibility of an opposite sex flourishing relationship is just, just an impossibility. It's like, I think you need to get out more like that. That's, there's, there's just so much variation, flexibility and complexity, layers and layers of complexity around sexuality. They, but they seem to take a very specific assumption about sexuality and don't seem to acknowledge that there are a

whole wide diversity of conversations about this in sexuality conversations. Hey friends, I am so excited to let you know that the Upside Down Kingdom Study Bible releases on September 10th, and I had the absolute pleasure of serving as the general editor for the study notes for the study Bible. We enlisted a fantastic team of scholars, writers, and thinkers, people like Francis Chan, John and Lisa Bevere, Michael Bird, Eugene Cho, Derwin Gray, Michelle Knight, Rebecca McLaughlin, and the list goes on and on and on. The study notes address topics like creation care,

divorce, festivals, food and drink, science, sexuality, gender, Satan, demons, angels, and giants, politics, race and ethnicity, and many, many other relevant cultural, political, and giants, politics, race and ethnicity, and many, many other relevant cultural, political, and social topics. So please check it out, the upside down Kingdom Study Bible, wherever books and Bibles are sold. Okay, another issue that I had, again, this isn't a main issue, but it was enough to include

in the adenum. It's kind of, I feel like it's unclear how Hayes and Hayes now feel about Christians who hold to a historically Christian view of marriage. So, in chapter 16 of the book, they argue that historically Christians who believe in traditional marriage, that they are like the weak believers of Romans 14, who, quote, fail to recognize the freedom that Jesus Christ offers. I mean, let you wrestle with that. And the strong believers are affirming believers, Christians, mostly Western, mostly white affluent

Christians who believe in same-sex marriage as something blessed by the God of the Bible. The strong believers are the, quote, liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions. Okay, you're the strong believer, I'm the weak believer. Fine, okay, let's go with that. They also say, and I think this is kind of helpful, that in Romans 14, it's a strong that they can be tempted to despise the weak, narrow-minded ruling fall rule following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. I'm that, that is a bizarre way of framing it. Narrow-minded rule following again, extremely

ethnocentric, but whatever, let's just go with that. The authors encourage, uh, haze and haze encouraged a strong today, affirming Christians not to despise the week. So they're not to despise me. I'm the week I'm narrow minded. I'm real falling conservative, but he's telling it affirming people today. Don't despise people like Preston. Okay. Okay. In fact, he, they even quote Romans, I think it's 15. It says, you know, welcome one another just as crisis welcomed you for the glory of God. Okay. That's, that's like, Hey, get along. Don't despise them. They're weak believers, but don't, don't judge them for that. Okay. That I think that's a, um, a little bit maternalistic posture, but I'll live. I can live with that. But in other places in the book,

they'll say things like, you know, any church that holds to a historically Christian view of marriage is, quote, summoned to repent of its narrow, fearful vision. Wow. Unquote. The authors then accuse these churches of, quote, making God's offer of grace a lie. That's a bold accusation. Unquote. Sorry.

Unquote before the full accusation. And that these churches are demonstrating, quote, a lack of curiosity and hardness of heart, unquote, quote, continuing to do harm against LGBT, unquote, against LGBTQ people and, quote, attempting to block God emphasis original, unquote, by not listening to the Holy Spirit. Well, you know, I'm not sure if Hayes and Hayes are extending me a hand of grace or a millstone for my neck. I mean, it just does not a lot of consistency in the book. Also, and this is a, again, there's, there's many quote unquote, third way writers who use Romans 13 or sorry, Romans 14, the strong and the weak. And they do the same thing. Hayes and Hayes do. They map it on, you know, affirming people who are strong, non-affirming of the weak. Like this has been done before several times, right? Here's the problem with that

is like Paul never encouraged the strong to summon the weak to repentance, nor did he accuse the weak of like making God's offer a lie or being hard-hearted, uncurious people clinging to a fearful vision of, you know, of exclusion. Like, that's not, that's not the tenor of Romans 14. In fact, if Hayes and Hayes want to map Romans 14 onto the current discussion and call those who affirm same-sex marriage the strong believers, wouldn't it be the strong, according to Romans 14, who should give up their freedom to affirm same-sex marriage for the sake of the weak? Like if you're going to apply that to today, then go all the way.

But they do the exact opposite when they talk about non-affirming Christians as a whole. I do include in my written review a lengthy with a lot of his, well, a couple of his previous articles. Um, well, so let me, um, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in well, a couple of his previous articles. Well, so let me, in the whining of God's mercy, he doesn't say he's changed his view of scripture, like the exegesis of, I guess, the about what I said, but in other places, he's simply upset and saddened that quote, many traditionalists and conservatives have seized

the power of the New Testament. And so he doesn't really say, well, and this is where it gets kind of unclear. Sometimes it seems to say, yes, I was wrong about what I said. But in other places, he's simply upset and saddened that, quote, many traditionalists and conservatives have seized upon that one chapter in moral vision as the final word. And he goes on to say, you know, that one chapter was intended to be, quote, a thought experiment, a proposal for how to think about certain type of methodological problems in theological ethics." He said he wanted to quote, start a conversation rather than end one, unquote, again, referring to his previous work. Like, hey, I wasn't being dogmatic. I wasn't really

advocating for this. I was just engaging in a thought experiment and a bunch of conservatives just seized on this one chapter and ran with it. Uh, and he says they wrongfully appropriated that chapter and use it as ammunition to argue for an uncompromising conservative position. He says his previous work was used contrary to my intention. It has caused harm to many over the past quarter of a century. So, so he doesn't say it was his argument is wrong. It's just how it's been used. It was his main concern here. And he says, he'll, he'll say, I bear some responsibility for that. And he's grieved by it. And he's written the widening of God, God's mercy in order to repent from

the harm caused by his previous work or how his previous work was missed used, seized upon by conservatives. And so he, he regrets the impact of what he previously wrote, but he never really says, I regret what I wrote more the impact. I mean, okay. So my, while it seems, I think this is repeated apologies and repentance, sometimes felt like a mild struggle session, but I do, I admire't know how a well-known scholar in the environment of like Duke university in 2024 can still hold to a traditional view of marriage. I mean, honestly, I don't, I vaguely recall, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. like Duke University in 2024 can still hold to a traditional view of marriage.

I mean, honestly, I vaguely recall years ago when there was something flared up in the news, how people were so upset that they have this homophobic, bigoted scholar, whatever. He's not, but I mean, that's how I think there was a lot of negative reaction to Richard Hayes who wrote this stuff back in the nineties, is teaching at Duke University. So I don't know, he's in an environment from my perception that is very progressive and affirming. So when people say, were you shocked he changed his mind? I was like, not really.

I think one's social environment does a lot to one's thinking. And that's his basic psychology, right? So I don't, yeah, but wasn't terribly shocked to change his mind. But he, so he says this, and it's kind of buried in a footnote on page 245. He says, I, Richard, stand fully behind the descriptive exegetical judgments I made there about the meaning of all these texts. So there he says, I don't, my exegesis is the same. But then he goes on to say, or in the same paragraph, he says, he believes that the biblical authors did not have in mind the sort of homosexual relationships that the church now considers blessing. And it is not possible to imagine what they might have said about them. So we don't know what the biblical

authors would have said about the same sex relationships that we're dealing with today, okay? As it is, he says, many of the passages are unambiguous in their disapproval of homosexual activity. I'm a little surprised that this, again, I don't know, this could be overly nitpicky. If it is, then I apologize. I was a little shocked that he still uses phrases like homosexual relationships and homosexual activity. Like, if you've kept up with the conversation, like you know that most gay people don't like the phrase like homosexual this and homosexual. Like the word homosexual is pretty outdated.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal. So okay. So Richard does not disagree with his previous interpretation of scripture. Rather, he now believes that the kinds of same-sex sexual relationships the authors were talking about aren't quote the sort of homosexual relationships that the church now considers blessing. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide any evidence for this. I mean, again, this is something that has been talked about a lot in the scholarship on biblical sexuality, especially as it pertains to same-sex sexual relationships. Were the kinds of relationships

that Paul and others were addressing, are they the same as, akin to, analogous to, or very different from the kinds of same sex sexual relationships that the church is wrestling with today? That's a well-known debate, argument, and there's been a lot written on it. Richard just simply takes it for granted. He just kind of states it as fact, it's not, that ancient kinds of same sex relationships were nothing like the kinds of relationships today. I mean, that is a

huge brick in his pyramid argument. I don't know. It's a huge piece of his argument to just rely on this, a kind of assertion's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a that it's a debate. I'll move on from this point. So yeah, all that to say, I don't, it's just, it seems a little unclear what, what he disagrees with in his previous work. What has changed? There's a few times when he, he notes explicitly, I used to believe this. I don't believe that he even says in the book that he did encounter

the trajectory argument when he wrote moral vision. And then he, he didn't think it was legitimate and now he does. So now he's like, I think I was wrong by denying that argument. So he does say that kind of, kind of in passing. Okay. Let's move on. Um, I don't, so a fourth point I raised here is there's questionable assumptions about God changing his mind. This, okay. I, I, I'm going to guess that most Christian conservatives are going to be hung up on Christopher's ongoing treatment of God changing his mind, especially in the Old Testament sections. Richard does refer to it, but it's not a, it doesn't come up too much in the, in the New Testament section, but it plays a major role in the Old Testament chapters, God changing his mind. Again, here's where I put on my exegetical hat. I'm not a theologian.

My daughter's asking me the other day, are you a theologian? I said, well, technically I'm not. If I'm just talking to a popular level, like somebody in the pews, it doesn't know kind of the division of religious degrees. Sure, I guess you can say I'm a theologian, but technically, vision of religious degrees. Like, sure, I guess you can say I'm a theologian, but technically I am what would be called a biblical scholar, maybe a biblical theologian. I am not a theologian. That is a separate theological discipline. And so, I think theologians, there's a big debate about the nature of God changing His mind, how to interpret these passages, how to put it all together, how to construct a classical theistic portrait of God. You know, I think a lot of conservatives are going to say he's denying classic theism. Maybe he is, maybe

isn't. That's just not my area of expertise. My main area is in exegesis, the interpretation of these ancient texts that have been compiled into what now we call scripture. So that's the lens through which I kind of evaluated his treatment about God changing his mind. So even from that exegetical perspective, I just don't, I didn't feel like he treated these passages very carefully. Now, I do want to say Christopher Hayes is an old Testament scholar. I am not, I'm a new Testament guy, but I I've done a bit of for a new test. I've done actually a bit of work scholarly work, even in the old Testament. So it's not like I haven't read the thing. And I'm familiar with the stuff he's talking about here. So, so I, I, I'm not totally ignorant of

what he's saying, but I do want to say, hey, here's some thoughts that I have about this, why I'm not really persuaded. So a couple of things, like just the word behind God changing his mind, the Hebrew in the Chom, it's a polysemous, polysemous, polysemous. It's a word that's capable of different meanings. It can mean several different things. It can mean several different things. It can mean regret, God regrets something. It can mean a change of heart. It could mean repent. It could mean feel sorry. It could mean even to find comfort or consolation or obtain satisfaction or take relish in among many other things. This word can mean many

things, yet Christopher consistently interprets it to mean in every passage, God changes mine. And he kind of pushes that as provocatively as he can. Again, maybe he's right, but it just, I would have maybe wanted a bit more. And even in a popular level book, you could say, Hey, this work can mean several different things. Some people argue people argue this, whatever for these two reasons, I think it means this and these passages and then move on. There is one place where he says that the word can mean change your mind or regret. And in this passage, it means both. That's the only time he kind of, as far as I can recall, when he kind of even acknowledged that this word can mean different things. So yeah, so I think it's a bit simplistic of an

interpretation of the Hebrew word, uh, also, I mean, to regret and change your mind that those, those mean different things, you know, like, um, I use the illustration in, in, in the, in my written review that, you know, I could regret that I let my son take my convertible Mustang for a joy ride after he ran it off the road, but this is, this doesn't mean I changed I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I don't have a convertible Mustang by the way. So if anybody's looking for a birthday

present for me, my birthday is in January. It's also possible. So a lot of like, I guess mainly evangelical interpreters, okay, would say, well, no, the changing of the mind passages, they're anthropomorphisms. They're a human description of a non-human being. It's describing God in human-like terms, kind of like, you know, God walking in the garden in Genesis 3 when God is spirit, doesn't have legs, right? But that's just a way we can kind of understand God moving in creation as He's walking, okay? So, some scholars, I think many scholars, many evangelical scholars at least, would interpret the changing of mind passages more anthropomorphically, describing God in human-like terms, even though it's just trying to capture the mysterious activity of God.

I'm not saying… So a lot of evangelicals just punt to anthropomorphic views of God. Well, it can't be really what it's saying because God's not like that. They do so, I think, for the wrong reasons. They're offended at the idea of God changes his mind. I'm not arguing for that. I'm just saying that anthropomorphisms are a common part of the literary genre of the Bible. Like it's a legitimate exegetical possibility. And to my recollection, Christopher never mentions that this is a possible way to read these texts. Again, maybe it's a popular I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like,

I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I scatterbrained deity, like running around kind of frantically like the doctor in back to the future, kind of figuring this thing out on the fly. Like God changes the mind, like all over the place. He even says at one point and you might say, are you sure you're interpreting him correctly? Well, you can go to chapter four page 65 and you'll see that I am interpreting this correctly. He says that God commanded child sacrifice early on in Israel's history, but then later changes his mind about that. And

I'm not, not just, you know, like, well, yeah, God commanded Abraham to go kill Isaac. I'm not, yes, that's part of what he mentions, but he says that God codified into law and Exodus 22, 29 to 30, which is referred to an Exodus 20 verse 25 that God's faithful people were commanded to sacrifice their firstborn kids. But then he changed his mind about that. Not only changes mind, but changes mind. Uh, nine chapters earlier in Exodus 13, and you're like, wait a minute, extra 13 comes before excess 22. Uh, it doesn't make sense. Well, he would argue based on some historical reconstructions of the Pentateuch that Exodus 22 captures an earlier tradition and Exodus 13 captures a later tradition. So Exodus 13, God commanded human child sacrifice

and then changes mind about that. And then that change of mind you'll see, you can, you can witness in Exodus 13 and also access 34, 19 to 20, where it explicitly says that, you know, it's the consecration of the firstborn. You know, you, you offer an animal as a substitute for the firstborn male. You're not really trying to sacrifice your firstborn male. So now some of you again, I, again, I'm not theologian. So I, I'm just thinking just textuallyborn male. So now some of you, again, I'm not theologian. So I'm just thinking just textually here. Like did, is this the best interpretation of exes 22 that this is commanding child sacrifice? I looked up several commentaries.

I couldn't find a single one that took this view. Obviously evangelical scholars are going to have a problem with God codifying into law human child sacrifice. But I looked at commentators by non-evangelical scholars like Terrence Fritham, is that how you say his name? Fritham. The massive commentary by WHC prop, who has a long discussion on this, John Durham, who quotes Roland Devoe. None of these are like evangelical scholars. And none of them say that Exodus 22 is actually commanding child sacrifice. He also goes to Ezekiel 20, 20 verse 25. Oh, I'm not going to bore you with all this. I forgot gave no good laws by which you can not live. This is actually part of my dissertation. So I got excited about this. I have a section on Ezekiel 20 because Ezekiel 20 quotes Leviticus

18, five, which is the subject of my dissertation quotes at three times in verse nine, 11 and I forget, shoot. It's a while ago, but anyway, um, Oh, not, uh, it was Ezekiel 20 verse 11, 20 verse 13, 20, uh, 20 verse 21. Uh. If you do these things, you'll live. If you do these things, you'll live. If you do these things, you'll live. If you obey the law, you'll live. And then they didn't obey the law. They didn't live. And so you have the statement in verse 25 that God gave them no good laws by which they could not live, which I think is kind of like God hardening Feywa's heart. It's a way of describing the inability of the law to give life. It's very Pauline, actually. It's very Roman seven and eight. I'm surprised Paul never quotes from Zekiel 2025. Anyway, I don't care about it.

My whole point here is that he just kind of states that yeah, child sacrifice excess 20, 22, uh, God changes mine. Like, well, hold the phone here. Like this is, I, from my vantage point, I could be wrong. It seems like kind of a fringe exegetical view that you're just kind of stating as, as, well, of course, yeah, God changes my look, just read the text. I'm like, it's not quite that clear. Um, in short, there's several things with God changes mind that I think he didn't acknowledge at the very minimum the exegetical complexity of his viewpoint, if not the exegetical unlikeliness of his viewpoint.

From my New Testament scholarly standpoint, again, Christopher is an Old Testament scholar. So I want to just raise that as here's a question I have. I could be wrong. Maybe if I hadn't written, went and read 10 more commentaries on Exodus, it'd be like, no, this is a common view. God, the God of Israel commanded child cyclers. One more thing. No, you know what? I'm just going to mention these, the two other points in the adenum that I found to be problematic. This one is kind of big, but I'll let you go read this because it's already, we're getting kind of long here. Um, his, he argues on page 67, 68, that traditional views of sexuality are leading to high rates of peer-reviewed research on this, that his citation of one study from the APA, here's one more study in the footnote that kind of

correlates with that one study. But he, I just thought was something as important and sensitive and personal to me. I have friends that I'm loved ones that have either committed, lost a friend several years ago to suicide, another church member to suicide, another person who were a friend of a friend. And as I'm sure many of you probably know, if you don't wrestle with suicide, suicidality, I mean, it's a very common thing today. And so this is where I just lay aside my scholarly hat, put on my Christian or human hat here and say,

when you start talking about suicide, this gets really serious. And I felt like Christopher just either ignored many studies that have been done on this specific question, or he's just not aware of it. But if he did read more broadly here, he would see that this very sensitive issue, that the study, the results are far more mixed than the one study he cites makes it out to be. And to draw a line between holding to traditional views of sexuality and LGBTQ people committing suicide, I thought was, I mean, if I'm honest, I think it was irresponsible. It feels like he

selected one study that fit his narrative. And again, from my perspective, it felt like he was weaponizing the tragedy of suicide even as an argument for his ethical position. He even seems to correlate the child sacrifice laws of the Old Testament with traditional views of sexuality. Doesn't quite say, well, he kind of does. I mean, go make up, it seemed like he was correlated and it was pretty clearly, I'll let you go decide again page 67, 68. I just was pretty disheartened at that section for various reasons.

And then my last point is I think Richard's treatment of pornea, the word translated fornication or sexual immorality. I thought his treatment there, he does spend five pages on it, pages 183 to 187 on the meaning of pornea. I thought his argument was really poor and just underdeveloped almost. I think it's particularly clear, but he interprets pornea correctly according to Levitics 18, a forbiddening of all sex relationships outside of a male-female marriage,

including same-sex relationships. But then somehow he wiggles and does this, does that, and ends up concluding, yeah, the church basically can decide that this doesn't mean that anymore. I mean, he, oh, do I have a quote here? Just so, yeah, okay, let me quote him. He says that, quote,

if the church today decides that same sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as pornea, then we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer its members of differing sexual orientations. I mean, the language at the very least feels muddy to me, but if I understand it correctly, he's basically saying like the church can decide that the Greek word porneia does no longer include same-sex relationships, even though he clearly says, and I would agree, and scholars agree that the Greek word porneia in New Testament. And in Acts 15 verses 20 and 28, the passage he's interacting with, for any first century Jew, Jewish Christian, means it includes same sex, sex relationships. But he basically says, if the church wants to decide that it doesn't

include that anymore, here's some ways to do that. I just found it really uncompelling, but I'll let the reader decide again, pages 183 to 187. I'm like, great. Then have a, don't have a super strong opinion about a book that you haven't read yet. Do not use this review, either this podcast review or the written view in lieu of the book in order to form your own opinion. And then you can also use this book to write your own opinion. So I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm going to go ahead and do strong opinion about a book that you haven't read yet. Do not use this review, either this podcast review or the written view in lieu of the book in order to form your opinion about it.

My goal once again is simply to come alongside, be a dialogue partner as you are reading and wrestling with the book so that you have somebody else to bounce or at least hear some ideas on it. Again, Exiles of Babylon in just a few weeks, October 4th to 5th, go to theologianraw.com sign up. We'll see you next time on Theologian Raw. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.