The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics

by Richard B. Hays

A leading expert in New Testament ethics discovers in the biblical witness a unified ethical vision—centered in the themes of community, cross and new creation—that has profound relevance in today′s world. Richard Hays shows how the New Testament provides moral guidance on the most troubling ethical issues of our time, including violence, divorce, homosexuality and abortion.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Religion, Christian, Christianity, New Testament, Nonfiction

508 pages, Paperback

First published October 4, 1996

About the author

Richard Bevan Hays was an American New Testament scholar and George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of New Testament Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. He was an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church.

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

While there have been many books abound on the New Testament's function as critique of Roman Imperialism, there are few books on the basic social ethics and implications of the New Testament. Richard B. Hays' Moral Vision of the New Testament serves as a solid, basic primer in New Testament social ethics, both on the interpersonal/community level, and the level of political critique. Hays attempts to translate the ethical models of the four Gospels, Revelations, Acts, and the Epistles into basic forms of interpretation for the modern day, as well as directly addressing contemporary social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, violence and divorce.

The strong suit of the book is its emphasis on the Christian community as incarnational community--the church is the Body of Christ, and as such, enacts the love of God revealed in Jesus in all aspects of its life. "The church," he argues, "incarnates the righteousness of God." Paul, especially, in his letters to the early Christian communities, exhorts the followers of Jesus to live in solidarity with eachother, to practice forgiveness and sharing of resources, and to care for the weak and infirm. This church is also opposed to the use of coercive force, and Hays makes a compelling case for the inescapably of ethical pacifism in the text.

The weakness, however, is in a few of his ethical assessments regarding abortion, homosexuality and divorce. His communitarian examination of the functioning of the church throughout the New Testament text itself is particularly poignant and effective, yet some of the "personal" ethical examinations fall flat.

Homosexuality, for example, is seen as giving in to "unnatural" sexual temptations which consume the person in a way antithetical to the communal character of the faith. While it is fair to note that many personal actions can be detrimental to communal life (even if they don't "hurt" anyone directly, i.e. conspicuous consumption), the appeal to how the penis is meant to fit in the vagina is a tired argument that reeks of biological essentialism, not transformative gospel ethics. It says nothing about value in the nature of relationships, arguing instead that "nature" itself dictates whether or not relationships are valuable or beneficial to the couple and/or the community.

Hays uses the narrative of a long-time friend who was afflicted with AIDS to delve a little deeper into the New Testament portions that actually deal with the issue (Paul's letters, mostly). The story is admirably honest and moving, and the friend finds that he can not reconcile his sexual orientation with his faith based on this particular reading of the text. The friend also struggles with the rest of the gay community, which he sees as "self-affirming" and also sees forming ones identity on sexuality as potentially dangerous. Oddly, however, "natural" law is invoked in this portion of the book, while the rest of the book seems to present an ethical model against what is presumed to be "natural" in the society of the Roman Empire and the society of today (i.e. consumer capitalism, individualism, imperialism, economic injustice). The way genitals fit together appears to be the base of the argument from which the rest flows, and not how they affect the individual or community as a whole. In fairness, however, Hays acknowledges at the beginning of the chapter that homosexuality is a relatively small issue compared to economic justice--which gives an indication that even as a conservative Methodist he sees economic relationship as the primary crux the ethics in the gospels.

Despite the aforementioned flaws, Hays' book does a very thorough job of presenting the ethical world of the New Testament, and where the individual and the church fit into its plot-line. The church is to embody the social ethic that is represented in Jesus of Nazareth, and meant to turn the basic assumptions of the world upside-down. Recommended, despite its flaws, as a thorough and thoughtful introduction to New Testament ethics.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved loved loved this book.

Yknow how sometimes in bible study or in a sermon when we encounter a difficult passage we end up spending a significant portion of the time de-radicalizing the message? I feel like this book did the opposite of that for me.

I've read a couple other books by Hays- Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul and Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul which were collections of articles focusing on the exegesis of various passages. I really liked those books for their careful arguments and interesting insights on how the New Testament makes use of the old.

This book, though, is different. It's apparent from page 1 that Hays is writing not primarily as an academic to other academics, but as a Christian to other Christians. Conviction permeates this book, from the very first part of his preface where he declares that, against the impulses of the scholar to "defer judgement indefinitely", the Christian in the academy must take the risk of calling the church into obedience to Christ and his word. What follows is a powerful and challenging demonstration of how one may attempt to live in obedience to the New Testament.

There are many factors that contribute to the force of this book. One is the clear framework that is communicated and applied by Hays throughout the book. Hays proposes that ethical reflection on the New Testament should proceed in four steps: Exegesis (hearing the voice of a single book/author), Synthesis (hearing the voice of the whole NT), Hermeneutics (the process of interpreting and understanding the voice of the NT), and Application (living it out). Within the Hermeneutical step, Hays also distinguishes between four modes in which scripture may convey ethical instruction, namely in rules, principles, paradigms, and symbolic worlds. This is already a helpful tool that brings clarity to the often-muddy process of "applying" scripture. Often disagreements arise when people are unknowingly talking about different steps in the process of ethical reflection, or are reading the instruction of scripture in differing modes.

After presenting his framework, in the last portion of the book Hays applies this framework to various issues like violence, divorce, homosexuality, and abortion. For me, every single one of these case studies was challenging and convicting, for several reasons. First, Hays in characteristic form does not shy away from presenting what the bible does and does not say. For example, he plainly shows that scripture almost unanimously renounces violence and divorce in most situations, and makes what should be the uncontroversial case that scripture teaches against homosexuality. But he also bluntly states that scripture is pretty much silent on the topic of abortion- the issue is just not mentioned.

If this were all that were accomplished then this book would already be a refreshingly honest look at the teaching of scripture applied to various issues. But Hays reminds the reader over and over again that scripture does not only (or even primarily!) speak in rules. That is, we must focus our energy not just on understanding the rules expressed in scripture, but also on the vision of life (expressed in paradigmatic examples and symbolic worlds) expressed by the New Testament. Hays expresses this vision in three "focal images": the images of Cross, Community, and New Creation. So the question then becomes not just, "is divorce wrong?" but rather, "how must the church live out the pictures of Cross, Community, and New Creation as taught by the New Testament with regards to marriage?

The task of the church, then, is not just to figure out the right policy with regards to in what specific situations divorce is allowed, or what level of leadership someone identifying as gay is allowed to have in the church, or whether to vote to defund Planned Parenthood or not. Instead the church is called to imaginitely live in a community that exemplifies the sacrifice and love of Christ on the cross, and to proclaim that God is making all things new, and to figure out what that means as we encounter different issues. What if Christians were known to be people who just don't get divorced, not because we are superhuman, but because we adopt a lifestyle of sacrifice for our spouses and of openness and support in the community? What if churches made a declaration their members who are single mothers that, should they decide to keep their child, they would give and do whatever it took to support them and their children? What if gay Christians, struggling with whether they can really live a life of sacrificial celibacy, looked at the church and saw everyone already living lives of radical sacrifice and love? What if Christians categorically renounced all violence, all bitterness, all grudges, all revenge, all passive aggressiveness, all greed? In short, what if we decided to live like Christ?

Hays is perfectly aware that some of his suggestions are radical. But, he says, this only shows how far the church (particularly in America) has drifted from the actual testimony of the New Testament. As I reflect on my own life, I see myself implicated as well. But maybe Jesus has something better, a new way of living that he exemplified and died for. Perhaps this Way is what the church ought to struggle to regain, rather than agonizing over how to stay "relevant". This book has challenged me to reconsider the words of the apostle Paul, when he said,

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ...

...that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

[Northpapers · Rating 5 out of 5]

This year, as white supremacists gained power under the implicit approval of the president and ICE increased its violent work of tearing apart immigrant families in our neighborhood, I began asking serious questions about violence in defense of justice.

When the state's mechanisms expand and enforce injustice, is democratic or anarchic violence the answer? As a Christian, my life is oriented around a deep desire for justice. How am I to pursue it?

Added to this deeply-felt ethical dilemma was a deep distrust in American Evangelicalism's positions and posture on a range of issues, from immigration to homosexuality to abortion to poverty. How is someone for whom Christianity is deeply and undeniably true to navigate these times?

Hays presents a lucid and consistent approach to Biblical ethics then applies it to a range of issues. I found that my thinking had been anemic on some issues, inclined toward biblical understanding on others, and unreasonable in others.

The complexity of his task justifies the density and length of the work, and I won't try to summarize it here.

I will say though that his vision of the Church as a community shaped by the cross and aimed at new creation has already changed my posture, reshaped some of my ethical choices, and restored my hope that the scriptures, written across such a broad cultural, temporal, and geographic gap from America in 2018, can still speak prophetically through the ongoing life of the Christian community.

[Makayla Payne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes!! Finishing this 500 page book feels like a real accomplishment. So for that, I’d like to thank friends and family for supporting me through this time. And still, I can easily say this is one of the best books I’ve ever read. (I read the footnotes if that tells you anything). Hays is a genius and the nuanced way he writes about NT ethics has transformed how I read the New Testament.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hays wants the New Testament to be normative, the primary grounding for Christian ethics. Fascinatingly, at the same time, he actually acknowledges modern scholarship, redaction criticism, the plethora of ethical differences among the diverse biblical writers that were sometimes rooted in contrary eschatologies. Since he doesn't hold the evangelical assumption that everything is perfectly harmonious and that we can thus interpret the bible with the bible, but instead he wants to actually let the authors speak with their unique voice. it means Hays cannot use one biblical author who is exceedingly more reasonable to negate or balance out the ideological command rooted in an eschatology that was convinced the world was just about to end. Since, Hays holds to the authority of all the NT text over the church and would see any undermining of this authority as the diminution of Christianity, and yet also acknowledges that there are conflicting commands, and some unreasonable ideals, I kept wondering how will he proceed; especially if he can't use one part of the bible to do away with another part of the bible like Evangelicals typically do.

Hay suggests the way forward is to engage in a careful synthesis of the multitudinous New Testament material, using the three foci: community, cross, and new creation. Hays acknowledged the fact that biblical interpretation doesn't occur in a vacuum. It is impossible to not be influenced by culture, tradition, experience, and reason. it is obvious Sola Scriptura is impossible, for tied in with the cry "sola scriptura" was the delusional belief scripture is perfectly plain, clear, consistent and obvious, something Hays has enough sense to reject. So our synthesis of the biblical content will not only be influenced by tradition, experience and reason, but these also can be thought to have their place.

I finally got a better sense of how this played out when he addressed practical ethical issues with his approach. He first considers the topic of violence, and argues the New Testament is univocally opposed to the community of God using violence in the service of justice, but rather is called to pick up the cross, and live as new creations as we wait for the Parousia. Hays is committed to allow the different biblical writers to have their unique voice and emphasis’. He starts with a close look at the sermon on the mount in Matthew chapter 5 starting in vs 38. The words from Jesus appear so extreme that numerous exegetes throughout the years have proposed explanations to wiggle away from what appears to be the plain meaning. Hays finds none of these attempts persuasive. Hay argues that there is every reason to think Jesus meant his commands to be obeyed by his disciples and that he was not presenting an impossible ideal. When Jesus says “You have heard it said, eye for an eye, but I tell you…” Hays notes that the lex talionis in Deut 19:15-21 is prescriptive—it commands violence—one isn’t allowed to show pity. Yet Jesus forbids physical retaliation saying “don’t resist an evildoer” and “turn the other cheek.” This fits with a larger emphasis upon being peacemakers, salt of the earth, and a city on a hill. In Matt 5:44 Jesus says to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” As Hays continued, moving into his synthesis, he points out how Jesus’ entire life demonstrated his stance against violence and the church in the book of Acts continues to embody Christ's ethic. Paul, in Romans 5:8-10 told us what it means that God loves his enemies: it looks like laying his life down to save them rather than killing them. Paul is clear that we are to imitate Christ. Paul sounds a lot like Jesus in Romans 12:14-21. Later we learn what it means that Jesus ‘bore our sins in his body’ and are told to do the same by Peter who wrote “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps…. When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.” (1 Pet 2:21,32). Even in the eschatological gore-fest that is the book of Revelation—which eagerly looks forward to the worldwide genocide inflicted by Christ, when he returns to trample his enemies underfoot in the wine-press of his wrath, still in Revelator insist the Christians in the meantime are to lay down their lives, rather than fighting back. But what about tradition, reason, and experience? Hays points out that tradition before Constantine was against violence, however, since the marriage of the church with the state, the church has fairly consistently supported the use of force. Hay wrote how the reasoning developed to support just war is grounded in Natural Law rather than the New Testament. Hays also thinks that experience shouldn’t override the persistent call for Christian nonviolence and love of enemies. Since the New Testament speaks with one voice, then tradition, reason, and experience need to submit rather than override, if we want the NT to be normative for the church in her ethics.

So with violence, his synthesis resulted in a truly harmonious message and thus clear normative non-violence stance for the church. What about an area in the bible where the biblical authors are not harmonious in their ethical stance?

I read Hay's chapter on Anti-Judaism, and it definitely shows how he wrestles with the influence of scripture, tradition, experience and reason in combo. If we turn to scripture we have a variety of positions on Judaism; from Paul's agony in his heart for his people according to the flesh and his insistence that God hadn't given up on them, and how in the end all of Israel would be saved; to Matthew and John's impassioned, hate-filled vindictive tirades against "the Jews" whose father is Satan--those God-killers whose children are forever stained with the guilt of Jesus' blood--those who are not His sheep and thus cannot believe--whom God has as determined them to be damned, disowning forever. Sadly, Tradition ended up being more influenced by Matthew and John--thus almost 2000 years of pogroms--avalanches of hatred in word and deed from many of the pillars of the Christian tradition; indeed people like Augustine and Luther were people of their time, influenced by the prejudices of their day; we shouldn't make their words sacrosanct. The experience of the holocaust, at last, exposed this evil for what it was all along and thankfully made it unfashionable. And due to the influence of experience, now Reason (modern scholarship) influenced by the times, can look and find evidence that both Matthew and John were shaped in a bitter conflict with the new Rabbinic movement after the fall of Jerusalem. So what we see is Matt and John (who were part of a minority group) put their deep hurt, bitterness, perplexity, and hatred of their fellow Jews in their writings, having no idea the kind of evil they'd later instigate when Christiandom would come into its own. And thus, we can say Paul's position on the Jews is to be preferred and considered more authoritative than Matt and John, that tradition was wrong and that experience and reason are incredibly important. So what is clear, is when there are divergent views in the New Testament, and some of them are deeply immoral, experience and reason can allow one to favor those positions that are wholesome.

[Thomas Creedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Absolutely superb book - dipped back into it today to check something - first read cover to cover a while ago.

[mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

6 stars. This is the best book I’ve ever read

[J.D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A massive amazing look at the New Testament and how it relates to created a set of morals or ethics. In the first main section Hays tackles different books/authors to try and get some sort of consensus in the approach from them. In approaching in this manner there are some illuminating discoveries made from the different books which help us see similarities and differences in their respective approaches to handling ethics. After giving a thorough response to each he spends a chapter each on several hot issues among Christians. I really appreciated these chapters because it finally brought together all the work from the main portion of the book and should how they can directly apply to modern ethics. Also because of all the work he did to try and really understand what the authors said the handling of the different issues was done with grace rather than just emotions. Really an excellent book that I'll definitely be coming back to in the future.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing and thorough exploration of New Testament ethics. I don't agree with Richard Hays on everything (though he makes a more persuasive case for non-violence than I have previously encountered; I have heard he has since become liberal on same-sex relationships but his chapter on homosexuality is the best chapter/article treatment I have come across) but he is careful and nuanced. A challenging but rewarding read that deserves to be returned to.

[James Mace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The grand scope of this project requires at least 80% admiration. Among much else of greatness is brother Hays' faithful stand against the Sodomist agenda to destroy marriage by normalizing homosexuality. But I am sad that he is only too willing to distort Scripture in order to support his heretical views of Post-Auschwitical Correctness (an ideology arising since WW II that disallows disapproval of Judaism), his extremely questionable sectarian pacifism, and his inherited misinterpretation of the scope of the Second Great Commandment (and the concomitant decrease of love for other Christians).

Thus Hays practices what I call “expurgesis”: an acquiescence to anti-biblical ideology leading towards expurgation, editing, bowdlerization or suppression of biblical writers’ views with which he thinks he disagrees.

First, Hays puts on an unholy jihad against the Apostle John and biblical anti-Judaism (407-43). We see descriptive justification for adherence to Post-Auschwitical Correctness (408). It seems Hays does not like the message of parts of the Scripture “which appear to the morally sensitive reader at the end of the twentieth century [i.e., post-Auschwitz] to be profoundly objectionable; thus the interpreter is forced to make a choice between irreconcilable options” (314). “Simple harmonization is impossible” (409). I think this has led to Hays’ presentation of a “straw John,” since it is easier to conform John to Hays’ sensibilities than to wrestle to grasp what a “higher” John is really saying (which is not actually contradictory with the remaining NT in my view); and then a false image of John is tossed out in favour of a view of Paul (but censored to Rom 9-11 without Gal 3-4).

So he sacrifices the unity of Scripture on the altar of contemporary expediency. Hays’ expurgesis of Johannine literature due to Post-Auschwitically Correct concerns concludes that parts of the NT are less inspired than Hays is himself: “Thus, forced to make a choice among conflicting [sic] New Testament witnesses, we choose to see John’s position on this issue as a…theologically misconceived development” (434). Maybe this skubala is popular in the corrupt contemporary cultural Zeitgeist, but it is mere heresy.

Second, Hays likewise displays abominable exegesis in universalizing out of the original context the command for Peter to put up his sword after lopping off Malchus' ear. Hays, reading firmly through a coke-bottle-thick distorting lens of pacifism, mandates all Christians everywhere at all times to be entirely abdicatory of the godly force divinely mandated for the defense of the Church in this evil world. And Hays could not be shortsightedly devoted to the subversive ideology of Post-Auschwitical Correctness if Christianity were pacifistic, for American Christians would not have participated in what was popularly known at the time as the Great Crusade in Europe against Hitler. All the Pharisaic Rabbinists would have been eliminated, there would be no modern political state of Israel, and Christianity would not be infected by such things as the Dual Covenant heresy and related doctrines that sacrifice necessary biblical and theological truth because of the social evil in which Hitler slew millions of those calling themselves Jews. Hays and his ilk are subverting the biblical ecclesiology, etc., because of what Hitler did, e.g., at Auschwitz. The adoption today by Hays et al. of the resultant heretical ideology of Post-Auschwitical Correctness actually gives Hitler’s past evils an ongoing victory against the people of God. Hays should go live in the Pakistan of the Mawdudi disciples’ violent Jihad against the Church or with the Coptic Christians oppressed by Qutbian Islamist destruction and murder--then I might respect his martyrdom. Until then, go put a wet sock in it pal for your vacuously unctuous, pietistic willingness to see your very own brothers and sisters murdered so you can be popular among the pacifists.

Nor, third, is it ethical to oppose godly force to restrain evildoers (cf. Rom 13:4–7) since that prevents aspects of obedience to the core ecclesial ethic of the Second Great Commandment (Rom 13:8-10). Not only would erroneous pacifism have all the so-called Jews slain in the past, and not only would they all be slain in the present by Islamic revivalists aroused into a third wave of global Jihad by the existence of the political state of so-called Israel. But also, even far worse, would yet millions above the current Christian martyrdom toll be enjoyed by the minions of evil while Hays sits high and lofty, adored in the comfortable Shires of the West, constructing a so-called “Moral Vision” that will ensure even more of his brothers and sisters are slain and the western Church obeys Hays’ command of a corrupt Second Great Commandment that subverts assisting our suffering fellow Christians.

To the contrary, a truly biblical ethic would make it of primary concern (e.g., Gal 6:10) to care for the suffering Body of Christ, but Hays wrongly takes away this distinction and universalizes the Second Great Commandment so that Christians heretically fail to prioritize love for their fellow Christians and instead obey ethical aspects of the Rabbinistic and Humanistic heresy of the “Universal Brotherhood of Man.” But any truly basic moral vision from the NT that provides a foundation of rock upon which to build a house capable of weathering the stormy blasts must recognize the primacy of intra-ecclesial love as taught by the Second Great Commandment (and not prevent aspects of its implementation by subversive pacifism).

Because of such considerations, while Hays makes in this book a very fine and worthy contribution, he does not present a viable ethic for the future of the Church in this world. The Church will not most greatly succeed if it adheres to the hellish doctrines of Post-Auschwitical Correctness, pacifism, and a corrupt view of the Second Great Commandment, as Hays here advocates under the rubric of godly morality. Other than these three points, great project! You can read all the gushing reviews of voluminous adoration in many other places, but you can only get the truth of certain errors here (well, hopefully elsewhere, too, but I haven't seen anybody do other than sweet talk).

[Zach Hollifield · Rating 3 out of 5]

See the other 3 star written reviews (up to the date of this review) for more of my thoughts exactly.

In short: helpful on understanding that exegesis is always theological exegesis. Helpful in guarding against rushing too quickly to harmonization of seemingly disparate texts. Also helpful in the lenses he gives to find unity with in the NT texts; however one would be right to ask why these and not others.

Where Hayes goes wrong, in my opinion, is in emphasizing these tensions rather than their unity and claiming that they are so irreconcilable at many places that in order to remain honest one must choose one text over another (p 190 and note 7 of this chapter). He also seems to forget, or deny, that there is a divine author behind the human who may have his own intentions unbeknownst to the human author.

Worth reading and wrestling with, but helpful only up to a point where it then becomes quite troubling. See O’Donovan’s *Resurrection and Moral Order* for a better system of Christian ethics.

[Devin Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hays convinced me if his model. In that regard, it’s a great book because if it’s solid treatment of the subject. The only aspect I will change is that of my treatment of scripture. Hays is skeptical of authorship and redaction methods for the gospels. That being said, he finds scripture authoritative while keeping an eye on speeches from Jesus that could have been influenced by the authors.

For me, it was my first in-depth read on Christian ethics and I appreciate his attention to rules, principles, paradigms, and symbolism in scripture. While he gives precedence to principles, I find all four to be authoritative (maybe giving more weight to paradigms). His interaction with Hauerwas, Barth, Yoder, and others is very helpful in comparing ethical systems.

[Yulia Todorova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Книга про етнічні питання у Новому заповіті, такі як насилля, війни, розлучення, гомосексуалізм, аборт, відношення до служіння жінок, стосунки між чоловік та жінкою та інше.
Сподобалось пояснення та розбір написання всіх Євангелій та послань Павла: з якою ціллю, якій церкві, в якій культурі. Це дає більш цілісне та масштабне розуміння писання та норми поведінки у сучасному світі.

[Amber Thiessen]

Read this for my seminary class on New Testament theology. Provides a framework to help apply New Testament teaching to a few practical issues in the church today. Written in the 90’s so some things have changed, but some not.

[Wayne Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classic

[Russell Sigler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hays offers a wide ranging overview on NT Ethics, reviewing some of the 20th century's dominant perspectives, and offering his take on hot button issues like war/pacifism or abortion. Stick around 'til the end to see Hays' hermeneutic in action.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the most well-written, well-conceived, and truly Christian book on Christian ethics that I have ever read. Several other books on ethics just dictate denominational dogma, or tell you what the authors believe. This book teaches you how to discern for yourself how to apply the teachings of the New Testament to your life.

The Moral Vision of the New Testament looks at the different ways in which theologians in history have built moral frameworks out of the Biblical material, lays out Hays’s own framework for how he believes the Bible should direct morality, and then applies that framework to a number of major issues. Hays is very honest about what the New Testament does and doesn’t say, and is committed to the integrity of its text. In fact, he appears much more committed to the Bible than to any particular extra-Biblical theology or politics, and that allows him to falling into overly liberal or overly conservative stereotypes about what morals we should take out of the Bible. He does such a good job looking at the material that even if you don't agree with him you have to take his conclusions seriously.

[Luke A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard Hays provides the church with a very helpful resource in this modern classic. In many ways, he gives great examples of how to deal with the New Testament in ethical matters. For example, he shows his readers the importance of basing ethical reasoning on more than simple proof-texting. Hays dedicates himself to viewing the New Testament through the hermeneutical lenses of cross, community, and new creation. While this is a step in the right direction, I believe Hays emphasizes the secondary authors of Scripture to the point the sacrifices canonical unity. He seems to believe the voices of the New Testament authors are completely irreconcilable. Even though I don't agree with this line of reasoning, I do want to affirm the different perspectives of each NT author. I am willing to strive for some sort of unity, as I believe the Holy Spirit was active in the writing of each of these texts. Ultimately, "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" has helped me to see that reflecting on the ethics of the Christian life is inevitably wrapped up in theological reflection on the entire counsel of Scripture.

[Daniel Seifert · Rating 5 out of 5]

The work of Richard Hayes, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, covers much of the New Testament territory with an intention to guide readers in a critical, reflective conversation with others and to stimulate thought leading to imaginative conformity to the New Testament’s moral vision. From this repository of ethical teachings, ten have been extracted for the purpose of introducing a new believer to the Christian Way. Although this approach is not exhaustive, it does provide an introduction and some corresponding biblical references to assist and anchor the imagination in the biblical text. In a brief manner, the following teachings begin to answer the question, “What does it mean to be the Christian Church?

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing achievement. While I cannot concur with every detail, the clarity and care with which he approaches his task, and each part of the NT canon, and, finally, the application of his approach to specific issues... Wow. Most important, I believe, is his clear understanding and communication of the fact that for the early believers--in stark contrast with most of us today--the focus was not at all on the individual but on the community. The transformation of the community, not the individual, is what the Jesus Way is about!

[Sam McCabe · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to write a review for a book that is as all encompassing as this is, but I will try. One of the things that caught me early on was his attention to not only what each text said, but to what it didn't say as well. That was fascinating. His chapter covering Revelation was masterful. I found myself stirred once more during the chapter "violence in defense of justice". For me, the book is a marathon not a sprint so if you decide to read it (which you should), take the time to digest it's content.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read most of this book now and am dying to finish it and move on to other things. But this book should be required reading for anyone who cares to open up their mouths to speak about what they think the bible means. Useful analysis of how one should approach reading the New Testament, yielding helpful principles such as knowing that different authors from different times see, understand and intend meaning differently. Great book read it.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I give this book five stars because it gave me a coherent way to think about ethical issues biblically. Also it was the book that I finished reading, looked up and said to myself, "I think I'm a pacifist". It is a powerful book, very academic but never dry, and full of the passion of a man who desires to live his live in conformity to Jesus.
If anyone is interested in a more in depth review of this book please write me or comment on this review.

[Bob Zhao · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty floored with this one even when brain was much too small to understand everything. Really loved his multi-focal image approach as a means of interpretation and the nuance he used to handle the hermeneutical problems raised applying his ideas to the lived world. Doubly insane that he was doing this in the 90’s - so much of it reads so modern despite the “conservative” reputation

Excited to trace the multi-decade throughline into his conversion to the other side of the A/B fence

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Though the book occasionally meanders unnecessarily into the source criticism so characteristic of the 90s, the work still holds up as a magisterial interpretation of the New Testament's ethics. Hays' reading of the New Testament and contemporary moral concerns is as relevant and needed in our own day as it was twenty years ago, if not more so.

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book to come back to again and again, Moral Vision presents compelling takes on so many of the books in the New Testament. Hays' readings of Mark, Revelation, John, Romans... all have shaped my reading of scripture in profound ways.

[Fit For Faith 〣 Your Christian Ministry. · Rating 1 out of 5]

30% read

Stay away from this book and false teacher, who is canceling here several books from the New Testament and calls those Pseudepigrapha, meaning per definition explicitly false and heretical!!! Note that he does not only doubt the authorship, he calls a significant portion of THEOS' Word false. This is also apparent by his choosing of the term 'Pseudepigrapha' over 'Deuterocanonicals'.

Quote: "The other six letters in the Pauline corpus (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) are considered by the majority of New Testament scholars to be pseudepigraphical compositions written under Paul's name by followers after his death. This judgment is, however, by no means unanimous. The question of authorship must be considered for each letter independently. My own view is that the arguments against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians and Colossians are not compelling; I am inclined to regard these as authentic Pauline letters. Ephesians and the pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), on the other hand, differ so markedly from the other letters in the corpus, both theologically and stylistically, that they should probably be understood as later compositions written by someone else in Paul's name. Even within this latter group of letters, different degrees of certainty obtain: 2 Timothy bears fewer marks of non-Pauline authorship than do the other pastorals. For the purposes of this book, I will adopt the working hypothesis that Ephesians and the pastorals [1 and 2 Timothy, Titus] are products of second-generation Pauline Christianity."

If the author would have only read F.F. Bruce's 'The Canon of Scripture', he would have quickly realized that there is no majority of New Testament scholars refuting those books as he claims, but that the New Testament in its current form had been widely accepted, except the book of Hebrews which is often erroneously being challenged while curiously enough being accepted by Hays ... Problematic teachers such as Luther put 4 books into a secondary section, but it is unheard of that now suddenly 6 entire books are up for debate.

It is hard to believe that such a heresy made it into the Top-100 of Christianity Today, but once again affirms the evil agenda of this magazine which is most obviously being steered by the Roman Catholic Church.

SOME GOOD TEACHINGS FOUND IN THE BOOK

+ Correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 (women ought to be silent), by assuming interpolation as the most probable conclusion.

+ Good stance regarding the value and enjoyment of marital sex.

SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE BOOK

- In the book, the author takes a firm stance against homose**lity, while taking the contrary position in his 2024 book 'The Widening of G-d's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story'.

It is interesting how many followers of Hays had been surprised. If academics would not widely ignore the biblical imperative of discernment, such surprises would not even occur and this book would not have advanced to a bestseller. Hays did not suddenly become a false teacher 30 years after the writing of this book!

- The book shows in parts a very low and rather uninspired view of Scripture. Critical voices are often quoted without a proper discernment / weighting by the author.

"Subsequent history shows that Matthew was spectacularly successful in formulating a foundational narrative for the Gentile mission and almost completely unsuccessful in keeping that mission grounded in Judaism."

"Although Luke used Mark as a source for his G‑spel, his style and sensibility differ dramatically from Mark's. To move from reading Mark to reading Luke is like moving from Beowulf to Milton. In both cases, the former presents a shadowy world whose bleak passion we can comprehend only in part, through a glass darkly; the latter portrays a well-lit civilized world informed by the social and literary conventions of classical antiquity. Part of Luke's literary achievement is to make the foreboding story of Jesus seem reasonable and inviting to a more cultured readership in the Hellenistic world."

"While appreciating Tolbert's candor in offering her frank corrective to Mark, one must wonder whether a g‑spel that places its fundamental trust in human effort rather than divine intervention can any longer be called a g‑spel."

"The artificiality of Luke's placement of the scene is indicated by the unexplained reference in Luke 4:23 to "the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum." This is simply an editing glitch on Luke's part; according to Luke's story, Jesus has not yet done anything in Capernaum."

"Matthew's adaptation of the Markan story of Jesus walking on the sea (Mark 6:45–52, Matt. 14:22–33) exemplifies his reading of the miracle traditions as allegories of Jesus' presence. Matthew introduces two major changes in his retelling of the story. First, he adds the tale of Peter's getting out of the boat to walk on the water along with Jesus (14:28–31). The story cries out to be read allegorically."

- He justifies his exclusion of the books of Timothy from the biblical canon with a supposed contradiction of Tim 2:11–15 with the popular 'saved by faith alone' war cry, while ignoring that the OT clearly teaches that women are -also- saved by childbearing. This is obviously a pseudo-objection and his motifs for the exclusion of 4 NT books must be found elsewhere.

"This [Tim 2:11–1] is one of the passages in the letter that could hardly have come from the pen of Paul. The assertion that women will be saved through bearing children clashes flagrantly with Paul's profound conviction that all human beings are saved only by virtue of the death of Christ."

- Close association of the author with the United Methodist Church and specifically the Roman Catholic Church:

"I would also like to thank the following groups and institutions for providing opportunities to lecture on aspects of New Testament ethics: the Pastors' School of the Oklahoma Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (1988), the Catholic Biblical Association in New York City (1989), the Ottawa Summer School of Biblical and Theological Studies (1989) [United Anglican / Presbyterian / Roman Catholic deans], the Graduate Institute on Contemporary Christian Thought at St. Joseph College in Hartford, Connecticut (1992) [Roman Catholic university], and the School of Ministry of the Florida Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (1992)."

"Thus, normative Christian ethics is fundamentally a hermeneutical enterprise: it must begin and end in the interpretation and application of Scripture for the life of the community of faith. Such a pronouncement will prove controversial in some circles, but it represents the classic confessional position of catholic Christianity, particularly as sharpened in its Reformation traditions."

"To put the problem another way, the logic of Hauerwas's hermeneutical position should require him to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church, however, historically teaches positions on major ethical issues (such as just war and the role of women in the church) that Hauerwas cannot accept. Thus, he refuses to have his mind and character formed by that tradition and chooses instead to live, anomalously, as a Protestant with no clear theological rationale for his ecclesial practice and no empirical community to exemplify his vision of ecclesial politics."

- Endorsement of the Catholic Magnificat (Canticle of Mary).

- Plain endorsement of Feminism:

"Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, a German Roman Catholic New Testament scholar who has held major teaching positions in the United States at Notre Dame and Harvard, has become the leading voice of feminist biblical criticism in the English-speaking world. [...] The impact of Schüssler Fiorenza's contribution may be assessed by noting the roles she has come to occupy within the academy. She was the first woman elected to the office of president of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL, 1987), and she is the cofounder and coeditor of The Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. She now occupies a chair at Harvard Divinity School as the Krister Stendahl Professor of Divinity. Amidst the lively current discussion of feminist biblical hermeneutics, her pioneering studies remain the major systematic works that have defined the terms of the conversation."

- Strong antinomian tendencies. Specific opposition against the Weekly Sabbath. He wrongly implied that IESOUS argued with the Pharisees based on a cessation of biblical law, while most scholars agree that IESOUS challenged the Pharisees based on their Oral Traditions they added to the Weekly Sabbath. If a scholar does not know the difference between the 600+ Old Covenant Laws and the 1500+ Oral Laws, then he should not teach Christianity.

- He opposes the biblical command for head coverings by wrongly relating it to Hellenistic culture:

"Paul's norms could be derived from Hellenistic philosophy or from what was "in the air" in Hellenistic popular culture. For example, near the end of a labored argument about head coverings, he asks the Corinthians, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?" (1 Cor. 11:14, AA). Alternatively, some of his norms could be retained from his pharisaic Jewish heritage, despite his formal rejection of the Torah as a directly binding set of regulations for his churches."

- Endorsement of Billy Graham as Christian (strong tendency towards universalism, key figure in the ecumenical movement; close collaboration with the Vatican and the Pope; unfriendly takeover of Halley's Bible Handbook and deletion of Jesuit references; advised his friend Nixon to end the Vietnam conflict in a blaze of glory; trained women pastors; great admirer of the 33° Mason Norman Vincent Peale; trained Rick Warren; taught theistic evolution; promoted the Alpha Course).

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hays is an excellent Biblical scholar, who writes from what can be called a "post-liberal" perspective. That is, he understands historicial critical insights, the tensions and diversity of the Bible, but moves on to synthesize a vision that is applicable for today. He does this by looking at the individual NT writers, then noting different methodologies and themes, after which he offers his own methdology, and in the final section, he applies this to individuals topics like abortion, same-sex marriage, and violence.

The first sections of the book are excellent. His treatment of the individual writers is among the best I have seen. I especially appreciate his treatments of the different author's understandings of eschatology. His methodology, similarly, I think is really good. I think it is the most viable pathway for NT ethics. My only criticism there is that he, following Hauerwas, reacts heavily to any insistence that love and liberation are guides to NT ethics. I think it is, and their dismissal is too reactionary to Fletcher's Situation Ethics. Love and liberation do function as guiding principles, they just are considered in a holistic fashion.

The final section was disappointing, in my view. As someone committed to non-violence, his defence of non-violence was not strong. I don't think fit well with his methodology either, that would grant tension and diversity in the Bible. His defence of abortion I thought was weak as well. He completely bypasses any discussion on the constitution of the fetus, and then assumes the fetus is a person, ignoring passages like Ex. 21, which he admits contradicts his conclusions. Also, his defence of traditional marriage was also weak. His treatment of Romans 1 was particularly bad. Romans 1 is describing a typical Jewish disgust for Gentiles, where it was a Jewish belief that the choice of idolatry lead to the choice of excessive lust for the same-sex over a natural, inborn desire for the opposite sex. Hays ignores the details of the text to argue his point. Moreover, he back tracks massively to try to occupy a position more gracious than what a traditional reading will allow. If Romans 1 is binding today (and the vice lists of Paul), they use language that is drawn from the OT's levitical prohibitions and their denouncements of Sodom. Jude 7, similar to Romans 1, sees what the Sodomites are doing as unnatural and degrading sex. Hays wants to be gracious and say that gay people can still be Christians, but the condemnations of the text don't allow for that. The exposition wants to have its cake and eat it too. Expositions by, for instance, Brownson, make much stronger cases for revision.

Overall, this is a solid book, however, speaking as a post-liberal here, there is a tendency amongst post-liberals to use the methodology to swing around to a more sophisticated way of being conservative. Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn't, and the end chapters for Hays are examples of the later.

[Kyle Dunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Careful, challenging exegesis of New Testament ethics

I liked the carefulness and humility that Richard Hays shows when interpreting the New testament. He doesn't flinch from it's challenging commands or problematic texts. He centers his interpretation of the New Testament around three focal images: Community, Cross, and New Creation. This framework is really helpful for thinking through the various implications of the New Testament. Hays shows how many significant ethical implications of the New Testament have been largely ignored by Christians who claim to hold it as their authority. Specifically the New Testaments call to non-violence and the sharing of possessions.

I didn't give it five stars because Hays left a couple big questions unanswered - is God speaking in the New Testament and subsequently is the text that God speaks through accurate in its portayal of Jesus and the Apostles? At various points he'll say that Paul didn't write a text attributed to him or that certain parts of the Gospels are later interpolations into the text. I'm well aware of how common these theories are in the academy, but Hays professes to be a Christian and the church is part of his audience. So how does Hays handle the questions raised by the theory that some parts of the New Testament bear false witness about the life and work of Jesus? The question has ethical import, and in his book on ethics, he leaves the question mostly untouched.

This complaint considered, Hays books is still a valuable contribution to our understanding of how the New Testament calls the church to act. Hays is inviting the church into this great conversation of ethics based on what God has done in Jesus, and we do well to join him in that conversation.

[Adam Benner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading Hays' magnum opus requires dedication (many pages, small print), but it's worth the effort. His skill with biblical exegesis can't be questioned. You may not always agree with his interpretations, but then Hays doesn't expect you to.

The author surveys the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the 'post-Pauline' epistles and Revelation to explore the moral vantage points of the various New Testament authors. He then applies the lenses of community, cross and new creation as a way of synthesising the texts to arrive at a reasonable understanding of New Testament ethics. By highlighting how other ethicists have used the N.T. texts and offering his own hermeneutic, he provides a thorough and well-rounded discussion of Christian morality, while allowing irreconcilable tensions to stand.

One area which could perhaps be improved is Hays' presentation of test cases. He chooses five on which to apply the N.T. texts, due to their importance to contemporary Christians: violence in defence of justice, divorce and remarriage, ethnic conflict and anti-semitism, and of course, abortion and homosexuality. Hays readily admits, though, that if he were to choose the issues to discuss, he would focus on violence, women in the church and the sharing of possessions, and that the New Testament has far more to say about these than it does about divorce, abortion (on which it says literally nothing) and homosexuality. He does provide a quick take on sharing possessions in his conclusion. But I would have loved to see more on women's equality and possession sharing, with a defence of why these, along with the violence issue, should be considered more vital to us than say, abortion or gay marriage.

Still, that feels like nitpicking, as this was an engaging read!