Quotes from Richard B. Hays

I would propose the following minimal guideline: extrabiblical sources stand in a hermeneutical relation to the New Testament; they are not independent, counterbalancing sources of authority. In other words, the Bible's perspective is privileged, not ours. However tricky it may be in practice to apply this guideline, it is in fact a meaningful rule of thumb that discriminates significantly between different approaches to New Testament ethics.

To live faithfully in the time between the times is to walk a tightrope of moral discernment, claiming neither too much nor too little for God's transforming power within the community of faith.

The living out of the New Testament cannot occur in a book; it can happen only in the life of the Christian community.

To be trained for the kingdom is to be trained to see the world from the perspective of God's future—and therefore askew from what the world counts as common sense.

Action flows from character, but character is not so much a matter of innate disposition as of training in the ways of righteousness. Those who respond to Jesus' preaching and submit to his instruction will find themselves formed in a new way so that their actions will, as it were, "naturally" be wise and righteous.

Beware of the interpreter who always quotes only the Haustafeln (e.g., Col. 3:22: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything") and never wrestles with Galatians 5:1 ("For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery")—or vice versa.

no single principle can account for the unity of the New Testament writings; instead, we need a cluster of focal images to govern our construal of New Testament ethics.

Third, the church must recognize and teach that marriage is grounded not in feelings of love but in the practice of love. Nor is the marriage bond contingent upon self-gratification or personal fulfillment. The church has swallowed a great quantity of pop psychology that has no foundation in the biblical depiction of marriage; consequently, critical discrimination is necessary in order to restore an understanding of marriage based on the New Testament.

Theology is for Paul never merely a speculative exercise; it is always a tool for constructing community.

Sixth, the community of the church must seek to find ways to provide deep and satisfying koinnia and friendships for those divorced persons who choose not to remarry in order to devote their lives to the service of God outside the married state.

the church is to find its identity and vocation by recognizing its role within the cosmic drama of God's reconciliation of the world to himself.

God transforms and saves a people, not atomized individuals.

Hoarding is both unnecessary and an affront to God, who is perfectly capable of providing abundantly for those who trust in him.

When human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator's design.

final dimension of the interpretive task: right reading of the New Testament occurs only where the Word is embodied. We learn what the text means only if we submit ourselves to its power in such a way that we are changed by it.

The New Testament is not a simple, homogeneous body of doctrine. It is, rather, a chorus of diverse voices. These voices differ not only in pacing and intonation but also in the material content of their messages. No matter how devoutly we might wish it otherwise, we cannot hear these texts as a chorus speaking in unison.

There is no meaningful distinction between theology and ethics in Paul's thought, because Paul's theology is fundamentally an account of God's work of transforming his people into the image of Christ.

In Christ, we know that the powers of the old age are doomed, and the new creation is already appearing. Yet at the same time, all attempts to assert the unqualified presence of the kingdom of God stand under judgment of the eschatological reservation: not before the time, not yet.

Homosexual acts are not, however, specially reprehensible sins; they are no worse than any of the other manifestations of human unrighteousness listed in the passage (w. 29–31)—no worse in principle than covetousness or gossip or disrespect for parents.

Homosexual activity will not incur God's punishment: it is its own punishment, an

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." The reader who gleefully joins in the condemnation of the unrighteous is "without excuse" (anapologtos) before God (2:1), just as those who refuse to acknowledge God are anapologtos

Consequently, for Paul, self-righteous judgment of homosexuality is just as sinful as the homosexual behavior itself. That does not mean that Paul is disingenuous in his rejection of homosexual acts and all the other sinful activities mentioned in Romans 1:24–32; all the evils listed there remain evils (cf. also Rom. 6:1–23).25 But no one should presume to be above God's judgment; all of us stand in radical need of God's mercy.

The love of God is far more important than any human love. Sexual fulfillment finds its place, at best, as a subsidiary good within this larger picture.

Unfortunately, the strategy is conceptually incoherent, because every jot and tittle of the New Testament is culturally conditioned. The effort to distinguish timeless truth in the New Testament from culturally conditioned elements is wrongheaded and impossible. These are texts written by human beings in particular times and places, and they bear the marks—as do all human utterances—of their historical location.