Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (Yale University Press, 2024). $28. 288pp.

Introduction

Sometimes when people change their mind it is occasion for joy and celebration, for there is no virtue in adhering to past opinions for the sake of tradition or fear of criticism. In this case, however, Richard Hays’s change of mind is a cause of grief and sadness instead of joy, especially for those like me who have learned so much from his outstanding scholarship over the years.¹ The father (Richard — a New Testament professor for many years at Duke) and son (Chris — an Old Testament professor at Fuller) rightly emphasize God’s mercy as a central theme of the biblical storyline, and many observations (especially in the New Testament portion of the book) are helpful and true, but their understanding of mercy when it comes to same-sex relationships deviates radically from Scripture.

We might say, Why does their view of same-sex relationships matter? Christians, after all, have different opinions on a variety of issues and we also dispute what is the right thing to do in a number of instances. For example, evangelicals are divided on what the biblical text says about divorce. Still, same-sex relations are not in the same category as some other disputes. In the matter of divorce, a long exegetical and ethical debate exists on what the text teaches. When it comes to same-sex relations, no such debate exists. Both the Old Testament and New Testament teach unreservedly and clearly that same-sex relations are contrary to God’s will. Nor is there even the tiniest crack in the window in Second Temple Jewish literature and in the orthodox Christian tradition. Divergent voices only began to emerge in the twentieth century. 

Ignoring the Texts on Same-Sex Sin

Remarkably, none of the texts about same-sex behavior are discussed in the book. The authors believe the issue can be resolved without even considering what these verses say. These half-dozen texts, they aver, can scarcely be the basis for determining the issue, for that is like establishing our view of slavery on Exodus 21:2 and 1 Peter 2:18. Chris says the Bible remains central for ethical discernment (p. 12), but it is difficult to see how that claim is true, since the entire issue is adjudicated without examining the biblical texts that speak to the question.² And it is misleading for them to dismiss the texts against same-sex relations for at least two reasons. First, since these texts are the Word of God, they should not and cannot be shoved aside in such a cavalier manner. They can’t be jettisoned so easily or quickly. Second, the biblical view of marriage (more on this below) is rooted in the created order, in God’s intention when he created men and women. The theological grounding against same-sex behavior is thus profound, reaching back to God’s purposes in creating men and women. Thus, it is illegitimate to draw a parallel to what Scripture says about slavery. Slavery is an evil human institution regulated but never endorsed or commended as an institution. Marriage is rooted in the created order — slavery isn’t! Indeed, in the case of slavery we have canonical (!) grounds for seeing the end of the institution since Paul directs slaves to become free if possible (1 Cor. 7:21).³

The grievousness of what is argued by Hays and Hays is evident when we read 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (CSB). Hays and Hays explicitly argue that gays and lesbians who profess Christ are Christians, and the church should not be defined by opposition to such practices (p. 8). Apparently, they promise eternal life for some who are heading for eschatological destruction. Notice the text carefully. We must begin by emphasizing that there is forgiveness and cleansing for all who repent of sexual sin, adultery, homosexuality, stealing, greed, drunkenness, and verbal abuse. As James says, we all fall short in many ways (Jas. 3:2). When we repent and turn afresh to God, we find open arms of mercy. But that is not what Hays and Hays are teaching. They affirm that there is no need to repent of same-sex behavior, that God smiles on those in same-sex relationships. This is the same as saying that unrepentant adulterers, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, and those who abuse others will enter the kingdom, even if they never repent, even if they continue to pursue their sin until the end. Their claim to be merciful, then, is actually mistaken. Their advice, not intentionally of course, is cruel since it promises final salvation for those headed for everlasting destruction. Such words may seem unduly harsh, but mercy only makes sense in a world where there is judgment, yes final judgment.⁴ And the witness of Scripture is clear: God doesn’t have mercy on all. Universalism is clearly outside the circle of God’s self-revelation as Michael McClymond has shown in his astoundingly excellent and massive study on the question.⁵

Hays and Hays, of course, know the texts that speak to same-sex relationships, and Richard himself once argued, as noted earlier, that all homosexual behavior is wrong. But now the father and son claim that the trajectory of the Bible moves us beyond the biblical proscription of homosexuality. God’s ever widening mercy, they aver, takes us outside what the scriptural word actually says. The idea that we can appropriate a trajectory that goes beyond the Bible was advanced among evangelicals by William Webb.⁶ Webb argued that the trajectory doesn’t include approval of same-sex relationships, but I predicted in my review that subsequent authors would knock down the fence Webb constructed and include same-sex relations within the trajectory.⁷ The father and son pair aren’t the first to make such an argument, but they are probably the most famous.

Hays and Hays give many examples in Scripture of God’s ever-expanding mercy and of a trajectory that leads to more mercy (more on this below). But we should notice at the outset a crucial point. They don’t point to any biblical evidence that sexual norms relative to homosexuality are relaxed. Where is the trajectory that eases the requirements on sexuality? Jesus’ words on divorce don’t point to an easing of Old Testament regulations regarding divorce but a tightening (Matt. 5:31–32; 19:3–12). If the proscriptions against homosexuality were being relaxed, we should see evidence for such leniency in the New Testament itself. Instead, the New Testament repeats and reinforces what we find in the Old Testament. Indeed, Paul grounds his words about same-sex behavior in the created order (Rom. 1:26–27), reminding the readers of God’s intention for men and women before sin entered the world. Same-sex behavior is wrong because it strays from God’s intention from creation that one man marries one woman for life (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:18–25), and Jesus cites these very texts in arguing for his own view of marriage (Matt. 19:4–5). Hays and Hays claim there is mercy where the scriptural word says there is none, and where Scripture threatens final judgment on those who engage in such behavior. Personally, I think of what it would it be like at the final judgment to meet God in Christ face-to-face after controverting the biblical word. That terrifies me, but the authors have their reasons as we shall see.

Advocating a God Who Changes

One of the major planks of their argument is that God often changes his mind, and thus he and we can change our mind on same-sex relations too. The first thing to be said — again!! — is that there is no scriptural evidence on the matter of same-sex relations that God changed his mind. The authors claim it is so, but they have no textual evidence for a change on this specific issue, even if they allegedly spy changes on other matters. We look in vain in the scriptural record for any indication that sexual norms have been relaxed.

It is also astonishing, however, that they embrace completely and happily the notion that God changes his mind. Evangelicals debated this matter some years ago, and open theism was shown to be sub-biblical, and now it is a minor backwater in some fringe circles. I will not revisit the debate here since it has been refuted decisively elsewhere.⁸ Still, the perspective of Hays and Hays shows the radical separation in some circles between orthodox systematic theology and biblical studies. The tradition of the church about God’s unchanging nature is waved away as if it is mere prejudice. They mention Calvin and double predestination, and Jonathan Edwards is also criticized.But they fail to emphasize that Calvin’s view on the doctrine of God’s immutability was hardly innovative. It represented the historic church’s teaching, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. The tradition on God’s changelessness represents exegetical and theological reflection for two millennia, and yet it is dismissed in a cavalier fashion. A few texts are adduced to call it into question, and unsophisticated readers may not realize that the church reflected on all the texts in the scriptural witness to formulate the doctrine of God. The church’s tradition, of course, is not sacrosanct. Still, the theological and exegetical legacy is impressive, for those espousing God’s immutability were not exegetical and theological lightweights, nor can they be waved aside as if they were simply doing theology out of prejudice. Thus, the ready and casual acceptance of God’s mutability is quite astounding, a witness to the theological poverty that informs some in biblical studies.

Hays and Hays propound their case for mutability in an environment where evangelicals are rightly emphasizing the retrieval of the theology of the fathers and the Reformers. Again, this is not to say that everything said or taught in the past is correct, but we are realizing afresh in our days that the interpreters who have gone before us were wise, patient, and humble interpreters of Scripture. Perhaps we should not be surprised that authors who reject orthodox theology also reject orthodox behavior. The Pastoral Epistles teach us that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are intertwined, and this book testifies to that truth. Also, if God changes his mind, how do we know he won’t change his mind back to a stricter view? How do we know it only goes one way? And if he changes his mind, perhaps he will change his mind about us, perhaps he will revoke his covenant promises. Once we have a God who changes, we don’t have any certainty about what comes next. Fortunately, as Malachi 3:6 affirms, God doesn’t change and thus his covenant promises will be fulfilled.

When it comes to God changing his mind, they point to the flood narrative. But they do not answer explicitly a question about that narrative that is most pressing. God wipes out everyone but eight people in the world. Was that a mistake, overly severe? Very few are shown mercy, indicating that mercy is truly mercy, that judgment is deserved. And there is no trajectory on this matter, for the New Testament is not at all embarrassed about the flood narrative since Jesus (Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27) and the other NT witnesses; (Heb. 11:7;1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5, 9; 3:6) appealed to the flood as a pattern and type of the future judgment. Yes, God is amazingly merciful, but the biblical witness also attests to the truth of a final judgment, and that judgment is not a minor theme but pervades the biblical (yes the New Testament too!) witness. Hays and Hays overemphasize God’s mercy, which is surely present since he won’t destroy the earth by flood again, but they seem to have forgotten judgment, and God is presented as a “good-natured” person (p. 47), as if he is “learning on the job” (p. 48), as if he is learning not to be as strict, but the picture given is skewed since they don’t reflect on the fact that virtually the whole world is destroyed in the flood, and the flood is picked up in the New Testament as a type of the judgment to come. Yes, mercy is available, but judgment isn’t withdrawn, as anyone reading Jesus’ words on the danger of hell realizes (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; Mark 9:43–49; Luke 12:5; cf. John 3:36).

Some of the examples of God reputedly changing his mind are rather surprising and unconvincing. The inheritance given to the daughters of Zelophehad doesn’t seem like a good example of God changing his mind. Isn’t this merely an adjustment, a codicil to the inheritance laws? It scarcely seems like a radical revision of the Torah. Other examples are mentioned, such as some differences between Exodus and Deuteronomy. Many of these can be accounted for by the fact that some contemplate life in the wilderness and others life in the land. But there is not space to adjudicate all these matters, and the authors don’t spend much time on them. At the end of the day, we have a different evaluation of the truthfulness of Scripture, which fits with what this book is finally about as we shall see.  

In the Old Testament section, the authors claim that the Lord commanded child sacrifice (Exod. 22:29–30), but later God admits in Ezekiel that he gave some commands that were not good (Ezek. 20:25). The authors claim that Ezekiel had in mind God’s previous command endorsing child sacrifice. Here we have an example where two difficult texts are cited to justify the notion that God changes his mind, and the authors conclude from this that we can go beyond Scripture. In a relatively brief review there is not space to delve into these matters in detail, but many commentators would dissent from the interpretation offered for these two texts. The instruction in Exodus 22:29–30 is succinct and should be read in light of Exodus 13:13 and 34:20 where firstborn sons were redeemed with a payment. Along the same lines, Hannah promises to give Samuel to the Lord but she isn’t contemplating sacrificing him.⁹ I suggest the following interpretation of Ezekiel 20:25.¹⁰ In context Ezekiel is saying that statutes in the law aren’t good because they don’t give life. He is not speaking objectively about the commands of the law. He is not contradicting what we read about the law in Psalm 19 and 119. If we go by the trajectory of Scripture Paul also argues for the goodness and holiness of God’s law (Rom. 7:12). Yes, some laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts (Matt. 19:8), but there is canonical clarification in this instance, and again Jesus’ view is stricter than the Old Testament on this matter, not more lenient. Furthermore, what evidence do we have, even if we accepted the paradigm of the authors, that the commands about same-sex relationships aren’t good? There is nothing in the scriptural testimony anywhere about relaxing sexual norms. It is quite arbitrary to appeal to experience to make their case.

Failing to Understand Redemptive History

Often the authors seem to ignore the redemptive historical cast of the biblical text. A fundamental feature of biblical and systematic theology is progress of revelation. God’s plan in history develops through the covenants made with his people.¹¹ When the new covenant comes in Jesus, the old covenant made with Israel is annulled. The Old Testament remains the Word of God, but the Scriptures must be read covenantally, which is to say that the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the final fulfillment in Christ. Israel as God’s people was a theocratic entity, where, so to speak, the church and state were one. God’s people were situated in a particular land, and they were generally speaking of the same ethnicity. In the New Testament, however, the people of God can’t be isolated to a single nation or a single locale. Believers are in every nation and every people group, and no nation on earth is God’s special nation. All of this has to be taken into consideration in reading the Old Testament, and Hays and Hays don’t clearly recognize the covenantal and progressive nature of revelation. Instead, they claim that God changes his mind, but such a judgment doesn’t accord with the New Testament reception of the Old Testament. Rather, New Testament revelation fulfills God’s plan that began in Genesis 3:15, and with the fulfillment there is both continuity and discontinuity. If we read the Scriptures canonically, the shape of that continuity and discontinuity is constrained by the biblical witness. Unfortunately, the authors appeal to experience instead of the canon, and thus they end up relying on their experience instead of the scriptural boundaries.

Let’s consider some specific examples from their book. Yes, God commanded Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, and no we should not do the same today. Israel had a special role as a theocracy to be a holy people in a holy land. The church doesn’t have the same mandate since it is not a nation. Of course, the command to wipe out the Canaanites in the land of promise raises questions, but we need to remember that God is the Lord over the life and death of every person, and the judge of all the earth always does what is right (Gen. 18:25). Actually, the text is sensitive to the issue of justice. The Lord informs Abraham that Israel will not inherit the land of Canaan for 400 years since the iniquity of the Amorite wasn’t complete (Gen. 15:16). God delays his judgment and patiently gives the Canaanites time to repent (Rom. 2:4). In some respects, what happens to the Canaanites is similar to the fate of the entire earth during the flood. God deemed that the wickedness of those in Canaan was so great that they no longer deserved to live, and he commanded Israel to carry out his command. No nation today is God’s holy people, and so the command given to Israel has lapsed, not because the command was evil, but because the church should not be equated with Israel. A new covenant has dawned in which the church is in every nation. The gospel going to all nations was God’s intention from the beginning (Gen. 12:3), but Israel was uniquely God’s chosen people in the Old Testament era.

It bears repeating that redemptive historical readings, the recognition of covenant structures, recognition of the progress of salvation history is a common feature of biblical theology, and in terms of the history of interpretation goes back very early, to writings of Irenaeus. The authors think such readings are special pleading, but it accords with the way the church has read the Scriptures throughout history, and Hays and Hays are the innovators. Early in redemptive history eunuchs were forbidden to enter the Lord’s assembly (Deut. 23:1), but Isaiah, anticipating gentile inclusion (Isa. 56) looks forward to a day when eunuchs will be included, and this is fulfilled in the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). Such instances should not be read as a change of mind on God’s part, but as salvation historical progression, as we move from the old covenant to the new. The same could be said about sabbath regulations. Yes, the sabbath was required for the Jews under the covenant made with Moses, but that covenant came to an end with the coming of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:15–4:7). Believers in Christ are not required to be circumcised (Gal. 5:2–4) or to keep the sabbath (Rom. 14:5–6; Col. 2:17) now that Christ has come and the new covenant has been inaugurated. Jesus anticipates such covenantal changes in his ministry, for the sabbath points to rest in Christ (Matt. 11:28–12:8), to the eschatological rest we will enjoy in the new creation (Heb. 4:1–11).¹² Hays and Hays are right to say that as the doors opened wide to the gentiles, it was difficult for some Jews to accept the mercy being extended to gentiles. And the authors rightly warn us against unwarranted harshness and rigidity. At the same time, the gentile mission doesn’t represent a change of God’s mind but a fulfillment of God’s plan that was intended from the beginning in the promise to Abraham.

Redemptive history also accounts for the decisions made at the Jerusalem Council. It is clear that the apostles, elders, and the church decided at the Council that circumcision was no longer required to belong to the people of God. Hays and Hays think the change here justifies relaxing the strictures on same-sex relationships. What they fail to see is the redemptive historical particularity of the event. In Jesus Christ the fulfillment of all of God’s promises is realized. Because of his ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension the Holy Spirit is poured out on his people and the last days have arrived (Heb. 1:2). The promises of universal blessing first made to Abraham, which continue to be voiced throughout the rest of the Old Testament, are now being fulfilled. Now the people of God are not limited to Israel but include all people in all nations that believe in Jesus. With the fulfillment of the ancient promises the covenant made with Israel under Moses came to an end. The stipulations of that covenant, such as circumcision, purity laws, and sabbath, have ceased. Those matters that separated Jews from gentiles, such as food laws, no longer apply now that Christ has come.

It is crucial to observe, however, that the next great event in redemptive history is the return of Christ. There is no scriptural warrant for further revelation or changes to revelation before the return of Christ (Jude 3). The covenantal changes occurred when and because the Christ came in fulfillment of Old Testament promises. For Hays and Hays to posit further changes, when there have been no further redemptive historical changes since Jesus’ first coming, minimizes the distinctive work of Christ and the epochal significance of what he accomplished. Furthermore, the New Testament makes it clear that no moral norms are altered even at the Jerusalem Council. The laws that no longer apply are purity regulations, sabbath, circumcision, etc. Prohibitions against idolatry, murder, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. remain in place. We see no evidence in the New Testament that moral norms are relaxed, and this includes, of course, what is said about homosexuality.

The authors make the same mistake when discussing the weak and strong in Romans 14. They claim that the weak are uptight fundamentalists who say that homosexual behavior is a sin, while the strong are those who affirm same-sex unions. Some claims in the book, like this one, are breathtaking in their boldness. But when we actually examine Romans 14, the dispute is over foods and the observance of days. There is no basis for drawing the conclusion that a new sexual ethic is being advanced. Paul is among the strong because he doesn’t think food laws and sabbath laws are binding any longer for the people of God. There is no indication whatsoever that moral norms are abandoned. Indeed, I could use the same argument propounded by Hays and Hays to say that those who think adultery is wrong are the weak but those who are favor polyamorous relationships are strong! A very convenient argument to be sure, but one that is far from Paul’s intention.

Appealing to Experience Instead of Scripture

A similar thing can be said about their appeal to Augustine and the rule of love.  Augustine, as we all know, would never countenance their view of same-sex relations, and for Augustine love can’t be separated from God’s commands. After all, people often appeal to love to justify adultery. Paul could not be clearer in Romans 13:8–10 when he says that love fulfills the law. Indeed, he tells us that the commands prohibiting adultery, murder, stealing, coveting, and other moral norms sum up what love is. Love apart from commands is a wax-nose twisted to rationalize all kinds of behaviors. Love is more than keeping such commands, but it is never less. The commands protect us from sentimentality and false views of love.

At the end of the day, the real criterion for their understanding of homosexuality isn’t Scripture but experience. They can’t bear to tell their friends that they are wrong and in sin, and we all feel that tension. But like Luther our consciences must be constrained not by friendship but by the Word of God. Hays and Hays assert that the biblical commands regarding the role of women can’t be accepted, and so the commands regarding homosexuality should be thrown overboard as well. But as many of us have been saying for years, countermanding what Scripture says about the role of women (1 Tim. 2:12–13) opens up the door for justifying same-sex behavior because in both cases Paul appealed to the created order. Of course, there are some scholars who are egalitarians who have nobly held the line against endorsing same-sex behavior, but the pattern so far is that institutions that have embraced the ordination of women eventually endorse the rightness of homosexuality. Once the creation order is jettisoned in one case (the role of women), the next obstacle (homosexuality) can come down. Hays and Hays really have no reason, apart from preferences and their own intuitions, to limit marriage to one man and one woman since Jesus appealed to creation to support his understanding of marriage in Matthew 19. The authors may resist such a move with passion, but we all know that those who follow their hermeneutic will not necessarily have the same inhibitions. Once experience is the norm the gate is thrown open wide. It is actually interesting to reflect on what has happened in mainline churches. There has been a trajectory from accepting women’s ordination to homosexuality. Such churches have become increasingly liberal and increasingly empty.

Hays and Hays argue that the church is not in decline because of its “impurity” but because of its “hardness of heart” (p. 17). Again, those of us who are evangelicals must not harden our hearts. We want to emphasize that forgiveness is open to all, no matter what lifestyle one lived in the past. As evangelicals we are called to live ongoing lives of repentance. We have many faults and weaknesses and sins. We must be open to the Word and the Spirit and be ready to admit where we are too harsh and rigid, or too lenient and lax. Still, the mainline churches are dying. As Richard John Neuhaus often said, the mainline churches are now sideline. And the reason why is not hard to see. Scripture is no longer the authority for them. As this book attests and the authors admit, their experience is now the criterion by which ethical norms are judged (p. 10). But if the Scripture is not the final norm and our experience is, then why attend church? Clearly, many young people feel this way. They don’t need the church or the Bible when experience tells them what is right, when we are free to go beyond the scriptural word. The Scriptures for many are interesting in terms of the history of religion, but they are not vital for one’s ethical life. On the other hand, many evangelical churches are flourishing where the scriptural word is authoritative both in terms of faith and practice. There is a reason to go to church because one hears a word that differs from the culture in which we live, a transcendent word, a word from above, a word from God. It is the word that gives life, the gospel that is God’s power, and that power includes the ability by the Spirit of God to live a life pleasing to him, even as we regularly pray for the forgiveness of sins. Thanks be to God!

¹ In his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), Hays argued that same-sex relations were contrary to the will of God.

² For the best and amazingly thorough treatment, see Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001).

³ See the excellent book by Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ: New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (InterVarsity, 2001).

⁴ See Thomas R. Schreiner, The Justice and Goodness of God: A Biblical Case for the Final Judgment (Crossway, 2024).

⁵ Michael J. McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Baker, 2018).

⁶ William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (InterVarsity, 2001).

⁷ Thomas R. Schreiner, “William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: A Review Article,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6 (2002): 46–64.

⁸ See Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Crossway, 2000); John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001).

⁹ For both of these observations on Exod. 22:29–30, see Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Baker, 2011), 508.

¹⁰ For other possible interpretations that contravene the reading offered by Hays and Hays, see Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (InterVarsity, 1998), 337–38; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (Eerdmans, 1997), 636–41. In my reading Ezekiel uses hyperbole to underscore the truth that Israel cannot keep God’s law. But dogmatism should be avoided on such a difficult verse, nor should a theological position be established on the basis of it.

¹¹ See here Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2^nd ed. (Crossway, 2018).

¹² Thomas R. Schreiner, “Goodbye and Hello: The Sabbath,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (B & H Academic, 2016), 159–88.

Correction: The author requested to make a correction of his review by deleting four sentences–two from the second paragraph and two more from the sixth. The deletions related to characterizations of Hays’s and Hays’s remarks concerning “superficial and boring” arguments about the Bible and sexuality (see page 2 in the book).