Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 10

David criticizes the modern theory that Matthew’s “except porneia” only refers to the Jewish betrothal period, and he argues it would imply the church was in darkness for 1,800 years and that parts of the New Testament “don’t apply to us”; what do you see at stake in his warning about creating “ingenious theories” to escape hard texts, and how might that same impulse show up in the way we handle other uncomfortable teachings of Jesus?

Another way to ask: Why does David think it’s dangerous to create clever explanations to avoid Jesus’ hard teachings (like “except porneia”)? Where might we do the same thing with other uncomfortable things Jesus said?

Direct Answer David warns that “ingenious theories” can become a way to escape Jesus’ plain teaching by narrowing words and limiting applicability, which undermines confidence that Scripture speaks to the whole church. The same impulse shows up whenever we create explanations that make difficult commands not really mean what they say, or not apply to “us.”

Support from Transcript:

He summarizes the betrothal theory as “ingenious,” but says it has “a couple of problems.”
He insists porneia “never had a limited meaning… always meant sexual immorality,” and early Greek-speaking Christians confirm this.
He says “I don’t think anybody ever put forth such a theory until… late 19th… or 20th century,” calling it “very modern… no historical support whatsoever.”
He argues the theory implies “for 1,800 years, the entire church was in darkness,” including those close to the apostles.
He calls it “scary” to read a New Testament passage and conclude, “Oh, and that doesn’t apply to us,” when “the passage doesn’t say that.”

Discussion Follow-ups What other teachings of Jesus tempt us to invent limiting explanations? How can we tell the difference between careful interpretation and an escape hatch?

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 10 of 10