Harding University: What Bible Students Are Being Taught (Part 3)

As we conclude consideration of this lecture given to students at Harding on October 30 by the wife of a professor, we want to notice the main thesis. Before giving her explanation of the Sermon on the Mount, let's begin with Allen Holloway's summary at the conclusion. He said that Rachel's lecture

summarizes pretty well what Jesus probably would say to us if He was giving the Sermon on the Mount today. "So, you have heard it said, regarding sex, "Fulfill all the obligations of mutual consent," but I say to you, "What does it mean to imitate the deep faithfulness of God?"

Does it make anyone else nervous to hear someone conclude, "Jesus would probably say this to us today"? First of all, it is opinion as to what Jesus would say or do today and, second, it is not a very accurate opinion. Rachel decides that "in 2020, He would have used different examples. The ones He used in the New Testament made sense to a first-century audience, but today He would use examples that would make sense in 2020."

One wonders if she and her husband make any effort at all to study the Bible in its context. She cites two examples from Matthew 5:21-32, where Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old" (v. 21, v. 27). A third reference in verse 31 simply states, "it has been said." All three of these refer to God's law from the Old Testament. Where did, "You shall not murder," come from (v. 21)? It's the sixth commandment God gave to Israel (Ex. 20:13). Where did, "You shall not commit adultery," come from (v. 27)? It was God eighth commandment (Ex. 20:14). Where did, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce," come from (v. 31)? It was part of the law—Deuteronomy 24:1.

What Jesus would probably say to us today is precisely what He said then. He was contrasting what the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, taught with what He was about to teach. Implied in what He said is that His authority is greater than that of the Law of Moses, which is exactly the conclusion people drew when He finished: "And so it was, when Jesus ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:28-29).

This authority of Jesus and the contrast between Him and the Law was never mentioned in this lecture. It was correctly noted that Jesus highlights the internal part of man where problems of anger and lust begin. However, Rachel tried to paint a contrast between the culture of Jesus' day with ours, thus ignoring the fact that Jesus quoted directly from the Law. She explains:

Um, I think the status quo ethic that "you have heard it said" part, um, is different today. So, I think that if Jesus was here preaching to us, the whole Sermon on the Mount, as an invitation that creates desire, um, I think He would use different examples—um, all throughout chapter 5—not just in the sexuality part. Um.

So, "You've heard it said, but I say." I think if Jesus was preaching to us today the cultural status quo, "You have heard it said," I think today Jesus would say, "Get thorough and explicit consent."

The best sexual ethics people are agreeing on out in the world today is the ethic of consent—thorough consent. It's based on mutual desire, people making sure this is actually what the other person wants, making sure that the mutual desire includes a care and respect for human dignity in this situation. That mutual consent has no hint of any power imbalance in the sexual encounter. It includes a concern that there is no objectification of yourself, of the other person, or even of the act. Um, and that is, uh, I think the, a…I'm not trying to say that I've explained all of that right here. This is a much longer conversation. But that ethic of consent, I want to say, that is good.

When Jesus gives us another option, He's not saying that the ethic, uh, that everyone's agreeing out there in the larger world, is bad. Um. I think this ethic of consent….

The problem with this presentation is that Jesus is not dealing with questions of culture. As already stated, He contrasts His authority with the Law's authority. He is not dealing with the popular cultural ideas of His day. We do not read, "Some of your best ethical teachers have said—but I say…." The Scriptures do not describe Jesus as saying, "The popular mood of society would have you live by this idea, but I say…." How does one get that from the context of Matthew 5?

And how much plainer could Jesus be than to use the words adultery and lust in His comparison? Do people today not know what these words mean? Not only do all major translations retain these two words, even paraphrases have no problem with them. The words are just fine; people understand them. But Rachel continues in the same vein:

So, I think Jesus is saying, "Everyone out there is talking about consent, and that's really important." But Jesus would say, "I say to you, 'What does it mean to be deeply faithful?' and 'Would you like to learn?'"

Well, that last comment is catchy, but it is not what our Lord said in Matthew 5:27-28. It's not even a close approximation. It is true that society places the wrong emphasis upon sexual relationships, and Christians need to teach what it means to be deeply faithful, but Jesus did not say either one of those things in Matthew 5:27-28. Below is one last quotation on this theme:

I think intimacy and faithfulness go together. Um. I think that often our cultural status quo out in the world does not, um, train us enough for faithfulness. So, hear me saying that I think an ethic of thorough consent that's based on dignity and respect is so important. I don't think it goes far enough to train us for deep faithfulness that will, including in times of suffering, might resemble crucifixion. Um, uh, and so if faithfulness is what Jesus is inviting us into; um, there is agency here.

Obviously, the status quo of the world will not prepare us to be faithful to our mates. The standard of the world has always been different (and lower) than God's system of morality, which explains why we should not be conformed to this world (Rom. 12:1-2). But does the world really teach mutual consent in sexual relationships? A portion of it does, but as a whole, it does not. For every dating or marriage manual that praises "mutual consent" and dignity," one will probably find a hundred pornographic magazines and a thousand pornographic websites that objectify human beings.

Various Other Observations

The students may have profited from hearing a few good points in this lecture, but they also would have received several misconceptions. Much of what was said did not pertain to the text, and the main thesis based on the text was faulty. If students do not learn that the authority of Christ is greater than the authority of the Law, a disservice has been done. Jesus is the Mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7), and His authority supersedes everyone else's (Matt. 28:18). So, hear Him saying that the action of adultery is wrong, but it starts in the heart with lust. The implication is that we need to battle the problem where it first arises—in the heart, where one's will and thoughts are.

Rachel discussed plucking out the right eye if it causes sin and cutting off the right hand as well. Her explanation undoubtedly left students in a state of confusion; the reader may understand it better than this writer. She taught: "It is hyperbole, but I also think Jesus is being very, very literal here. Very literal." What exactly is a literal hyperbole (exaggeration)?

Perhaps the reader has noticed how many times that the speaker used the words, "I think." As composition teachers, we were taught not to allow students to write such words. Speakers should avoid them, also. Why? Anyone who speaks is obviously saying what he thinks; so, it is redundant to say or write it—especially repeatedly.

Besides, are we all not taught to say, "Here is what the Bible says"? Do we not train teachers and preachers to ask others, "What do the Scriptures say?" We do not teach our own doctrine; we do not preach ourselves. God's Word is worthy of respect and deserves to be heard; our opinions do not matter.

What Does Matthew 5:27-32 Teach?

We have already dealt with the actual meaning of verses 27-28—that lust begins in the heart. And that's where it needs to stop, also. Once it infiltrates the mind and goes forth, it will express itself in flirtation and ultimately in adultery itself. Generally, one does not wake up one day with no thought of being unfaithful to a mate only to have committed the sin by the time the sun went down. First, there is an attraction and possibly some, "What ifs…?" These should not be indulged; Christians must shut down the direction of such thoughts immediately, or they will just keep expanding.

In fact, this type of indulgence is so bad for us that Jesus talks about cutting off an offending part of the body (Matt. 5:29-30). He is not meaning literally to cut off the hand, as one of the church fathers did, or pluck out the eye (How many men would be blind in at least one of them?). But Jesus made the hyperbole as severe as possible to make sure that we understand the importance of controlling our hearts and "out of bounds" desires. Job must have known the importance of taking such a precaution; he wrote: "I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?" (31:1). He didn't say anything about having special help from the Holy Spirit or a community to whom he was responsible.

Not much was said about verses 31-32 of Matthew 5, but Jesus forbade divorce. Has He provided a progression of the way dissolutions of marriage occur? First, lust begins in the heart. Then, if it is not soundly defeated there, and it becomes a mutual desire between two people, then adultery is committed, which quite often leads to divorce. A man who divorces his wife because he wants another woman (or vice versa), has no authority to marry again; he would be committing continual adultery while living in such an arrangement.

Do people at Harding believe what Jesus said, or do they take Bales' view? Or even worse, do they take Olan Hicks' view that would allow unlimited divorces and remarriages? What do students learn about that subject? So often, one hears comments such as, "They just fell out of love," or, "They could not withstand the pressures on their marriage," or, "They grew apart over a few years of time." Does anyone remember those things we call marriage vows? How much effort goes into keeping them? How much counseling was received beforehand?

This passage was taught early on. Jesus did not allow for any exceptions here, but in Matthew 19:9, one can divorce because of a mate's fornication. Only that person is authorized to marry again. It might have been helpful to the students to have heard such teaching.