MWR : Biblical context

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

May 18, 2009 issue

Biblical context

By David A. Shank Goshen, Ind.

Robert Kauffman refers to “the cultural and historical context” of the creation of the Bible’s beliefs and behaviors but does not address it. Permit me to summarize volumes. That context was one of a small faith minority’s seeking (and failing) to obey the will of the unique, anti-idolatrous, ethical monotheism of the “I AM” of redemption and creation. It was a life-and-death conflict with its world’s dominating cultures of idolatrous, polytheistic, sexual vitalism — divinized as Eros in Greece. Jesus the Messiah fulfills the will of his Father/I AM through his birth, baptism, life, teachings, death, resurrection, reign, Spirit anointing and hope of the kingdom of God.

When Jesus restored human marriage (Mark 10, Matthew 19) as at creation, this was a critique of both the nonconformist Mosaic Law and the life of “the nations.” It was a unique, not at all “traditional,” proclamation and fulfillment of the prophetic Word of Torah, with the creative intention of I AM — the monogamous, God-joined, not-to-be-separated union of male and female. It is what Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder — upholding nonresistance in his Politics of Jesus — called a “messianic ethic,” and then explained why many Christians often (erroneously) reject its relevance for today. Though Jesus’ disciples saw his restoration of conjugality as a “hard saying,” it was fulfilled after Pentecost by those same disciples. The early church sought its fulfillment.

Today eros (love of desire) has displaced duty (love of God and neighbor). The messianic, restorative Word of Christ is challenged by those who — sometimes in the church — interpret it out of the ethos of that 180-degree cultural shift (seen as “truth”). Disciples typically seek to allow the Word of transcendent “Truth” (as Messiah calls himself) to interpret and critique both it and them, and then follow.

Comments

David:

I can agree with everything you said above, well, almost. No doubt Jesus had a view on marriage and divorce but that he "restored marriage" is in my view to moralize a passage where Jesus had instead sought to protect women from arbitrarily being dismissed out of a life long relationship. It is well known that the followers of Rabbi Hillel had a lenient policy of divorce, while those of Rabbi Shammai a more strict halakah (ruling).

Using this pericope (Mark 10) to defend 'man-woman' marriage strikes me as anachronistic. Using the text today to protect vulnerable women would be more in line with Jesus' 'messianic ethic' as I see it.

Regarding sexual ethics, I wonder: the same Torah that has the male-female relationship of Genesis 2 and the divorce allowance in Deuteronomy also has the commandment not to have sexual relations with a menstruating woman, yet I don't see anyone in the church today harranging the followers of Jesus to avoid sex for several days a month. Why is this? Both the law against same sex relations and the law of menstrual sex come from the same ethos (not to mention the issue of coitus interruptus in Genesis [Onan]). And when is the last time you heard a preacher talk about masturbation and fantasizing (and reference Matthew 5??)

Of far greater danger to the church today than same-sex relations will ever be is the problem of pornography, yet I have never once heard this addressed from the pulpits of Mennonite churches I have attended. Consider that research also indicates that clergy have a major problem with pornography and perhaps we can see why it is not talked about.

Finally, as I am sure you are aware, homosexuality in the Greaco-Roman world of the early christians was not about the issue of same-sex relations, it was about dominance and power relations (which are consistently critiqued in the Jesus tradition. These, and other, important issues must also be taken into consideration if we are going to develop a healthy sexual ethics.

- michael hardin (may 19 at 7:56 a.m.)

Comment on the article Biblical context

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.