Papers by David Hillary
The exception clause refers to a post-wedding claim for lawful divorce, based on pre-betrothal se... more The exception clause refers to a post-wedding claim for lawful divorce, based on pre-betrothal sexual activity by the bride, by which she lost her virginity. Not the "betrothal view" that it refers to betrothal period divorce for betrothal period unfaithfulness.
If a marriage is either "valid" or "invalid" under Christian or biblical law, an "invalid" marria... more If a marriage is either "valid" or "invalid" under Christian or biblical law, an "invalid" marriage will not stand in the way of a party to it contracting a "valid" marriage with someone else later, even while the former spouse is alive. An "invalid" marriage in this context arises if one of the parties to it was a divorcee with a living spouse at the time of the marriage.
Matthew Malioni claims that this results in a chains of marriages and divorces, when the divorce rate is high, so that we cannot feasibly tell if a person's marriage is "valid," even though one or both parties may have been a divorcee with a living former spouse. The position will reverse every time we find a former spouse of a former spouse was themselves a divorcee.
This paper examines this issue and shows why it does not occur often, and how easily the necessary data can be obtained to do the assessment. The main method of analysis is statistical, to show that only about 0.4% of marriages in a general population will be affected by a "reversal" where a divorcee with a living spouse at the time of the marriage nevertheless ends up with a "valid" marriage, even when the divorce rate is high.
The claim that the resurrection of the unjust refers to a political or military rebellion probabl... more The claim that the resurrection of the unjust refers to a political or military rebellion probably strikes most Christians as outlandish, yet this paper will demonstrate that it is the original and proper meaning of the three texts generally accepted as referring to it (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15, as well as others that are often overlooked. The fourth text that is generally accepted as referring to it, Rev. 20:11-15, I will show is referring to a post-rebellion judgment and destruction of the victims of the rebellion, rather than to the rebellion itself.
This was an essay I submitted for my crimes paper. I was surprised I got a mark of 98% for this, ... more This was an essay I submitted for my crimes paper. I was surprised I got a mark of 98% for this, as I have never ever been marked this high for an essay.
This is a copy of a speech given by Gordon Wenham at an unknown date in Belfast, Northern Ireland... more This is a copy of a speech given by Gordon Wenham at an unknown date in Belfast, Northern Ireland, entitled Divorce in First-Century Judaism and the New Testament.
This document was on the website wisereaction.org for some time before it disappeared, and it is republished here to provide access to anyone who would like to read it.
The problem of Romans 13
Romans 13:1-7 is a text that is too important to misunderstand. The text... more The problem of Romans 13
Romans 13:1-7 is a text that is too important to misunderstand. The text has been used to justify the authority of tyrants and as supposedly revealing a general Christian doctrine in favour of a legitimate state authority. By implication it supposedly supports a general Christian doctrine in favour of the legitimate use of legal and judicial coercion to repay wrongdoing here on earth.
This kind of use of the text leads to a range of unnecessary problems.
Firstly, there is no other text in the New Testament in favour of the state as a legitimate authority established by God ‘under Him and over the people’1, and there are a good many texts associating coercive authority as the manifestation of Satan’s domain rather than God’s.2 Furthermore, Jesus claimed ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ (Mat 28:18), and the Paul affirmed but one Lord (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:5).
Secondly, there is nothing in the text or anywhere else in the canon that can be used to refute the application of the text to support the use of state power against heretics as, for example was maintained by Augustine and as practiced in the name of Jesus Christ for centuries.
Thirdly, it flies in the face of reality. State power is not actually used in the manner apparently described, and it is frequently used in just the opposite manner: to reward the well-connected evildoers and to punish the good people who have been unfortunate enough to encounter state officials raising revenue, expanding territory or otherwise imposing their wills and the policies of state on everyone else. The promise of freedom from fear of the one in authority is a promise broken so frequently and conspicuously as to make an ironic reading almost forced.3
These problems, and there are others like them, are unnecessary problems because they are based on an approach to the text that goes against everything the context suggests that it means. We need to start the interpretation process again by getting back into the context – historical, prophetic, theological and polemical – that the text was written in. This paper presents this approach.
Drafts by David Hillary
The Quest for the Cultural Background Keener's book first published in 1991 (Sixth Printing March... more The Quest for the Cultural Background Keener's book first published in 1991 (Sixth Printing March 2007 reviewed) features two key themes: an emphasis on "cultural background" (p. viii) and a charge against "those who would judge or penalize the innocent party" to a divorce (p. xii).
However, Keener fails to correctly identify the "cultural background" and wrongly takes a permissive approach to divorce and remarriage.
Seeking the political and military meanings and significance of the creation and eschatological s... more Seeking the political and military meanings and significance of the creation and eschatological stories means that we can unify the biblical stories and see our salvation as a present reality.
This paper provides a brief survey of the concept of divine sonship, and shows that, contrary to ... more This paper provides a brief survey of the concept of divine sonship, and shows that, contrary to Michael Heiser and many other good scholars, the term 'Sons of God' in the biblical material generally refers to human kings, rather than non-human spiritual beings.
Paul's 'Rock' politics of peace based on the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) and Israel's 70 sevens endi... more Paul's 'Rock' politics of peace based on the Song of Moses (Deut. 32) and Israel's 70 sevens ending with the destruction of the Second Temple in Romans 13.
The 70 sevens are not difficult to understand or to map to history. This short paper makes clear ... more The 70 sevens are not difficult to understand or to map to history. This short paper makes clear the application and the dates, focused on Israel's post-exillic period until the fall of the Second Temple.
Man's war of dominion over the beasts from Gen. 1-3 developed through the beasts of Daniel and Re... more Man's war of dominion over the beasts from Gen. 1-3 developed through the beasts of Daniel and Revelation.
This paper identifies these beasts as forces of disorder, a subset of which are political kingdoms.
The beast-free kingdoms of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant, and under the Kingdom of God are analysed and the latter is developed as the application of the teaching.
The song clearly warns about the wrong kind of love, with the thrice-repeated charge not to stir ... more The song clearly warns about the wrong kind of love, with the thrice-repeated charge not to stir up love wrongly (2:7; 3:5; 8:4). And the song clearly affirms another kind of love, stronger than death and not acquired with wealth (8:6-7). The lesson of the Song is inextricably tied up with how families and societies are to correctly guard, betroth and marry off their young sisters (8:8-9).
The fundamental interpretative question for the Song, then, is what love is the wrong kind and what love is the right kind. This paper shows that the Song teaches that the wrong love is the polygynous kind and the right love is the monogynous kind.
As a Hebrew song and the product of Hebrew culture and history, polygyny is a delicate subject for it to address: not only was Solomon the wisest and greatest Israelite king, he and many other historical Hebrew figures and heroes practiced polygyny. The Song is one of a number of salvos critically addressing the Solomonic 'royal consciousness' with 'prophetic imagination', in which his 1000-woman polygyny looms large (Deut. 17:16-20; 1 Kings 11:1-8; Ecc. 2:8; 7:25-29; 9:9; Song 8:11-12).
This paper addresses the Song in section 1 which explains the method, plot and characters and section 2 which analyses the drama, scenes, images and claims. Section 3 is an addendum showing that Ecclesiastes addresses the same question with the same answer. Section 4 is a further addendum showing that the flood narrative also addresses the same question in a more broad social and political context.
The Lord argues that Deut. 24:1-4 refers only to, and may only lawfully be applied to, the narrow... more The Lord argues that Deut. 24:1-4 refers only to, and may only lawfully be applied to, the narrow case of porneia. The Law of Moses restricts divorce, except for the narrow case of porneia, only in Deut. 22:13-21, and the reference to porneia can only be a reference back to this case.
Deut. 22:13-21 and 28-29 teach lifelong marriage and that a husband may 'not divorce her all of his days.' This is the Old Testament lifelong marriage law, in addition to Gen. 2:24, that explains both the law of lifelong marriage and the permission for divorce in Deut. 24:1-4.
This paper addresses both the controversy over 'some indecency' in Deut. 24:1 and porneia in Mat. 5:32 and 19:9, a well as addressing the supposed Pauline privilege of divorce for desertion. It also shows how Ex. 21 teaches time-limited slavery and lifelong marriage in all cases.
As a result, the Old Testament consistently teaches lifelong marriage and restricts divorce to marriages where the parties are jointed together, not by God but by marital fraud or by man in violation of God's laws.
Updated critique of David Instone-Brewer's divorce and remarriage theory.
This paper addresses ... more Updated critique of David Instone-Brewer's divorce and remarriage theory.
This paper addresses the historical speculations that underlie Instone-Brewer's theory, showing their deficiencies as well as providing an alternative interpretation and exegesis.
On the connection between the resurrection of Daniel 12 and the parable of the wheat and the tares.
Applies typology to the fulfillment of the Civil Law of Moses at the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.... more Applies typology to the fulfillment of the Civil Law of Moses at the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
This approach is applied to the death penalty for murder, for divorce and remarriage and the kingdom and building regulations.
This paper shows how, why and when the coercive civil law of Moses was fulfilled by the institution of the pacifist law of gentleness and clemency.
Book Reviews by David Hillary
From the earliest times, we in the Christian tradition have objected to calling violence and coer... more From the earliest times, we in the Christian tradition have objected to calling violence and coercion, covered by the color of political authority, virtuous-sounding names. "Murder, considered a crime when people commit it singly, is transformed into a virtue when they do it en masse," complained St. Cyprian (200AD-258AD). Martens is, therefore, in good company and is to be commended in stating that "criminal Justice is state-sponsored physical force" in his book (p 37). Martens treats this important point with utmost seriousness and is concerned about how we can wrongly minimize the moral, legal, and spiritual toll that this coercion charges. For Martens, this is a toll he has seen and touched as a prosecutor and a criminal defense lawyer, and it rightly pangs his conscience not that it is levied unjustly in the American system-which his book documents in substantial detail-but that it is even levied at all. That is a sound approach to be commended to readers. We should be concerned, as Christians, not simply that such coercion is applied to those who deserve it, but that coercion is applied at all. We should also be concerned about the manner and effects of such an application, even to the guilty. Violence to the terms and concepts of "love" and "good" But this is the first place Martens has put a foot wrong. While he is right to acknowledge that the criminal justice system is coercive, he wrongly goes beyond the proper meaning of biblical "love" and "good" to claim that catching a man and putting him in a cage for decades can be loving or good to him. Martens put it that "kind harshness … towards the wrongdoer … [is] serving the good of the prisoner (by preventing him from doing more wrong)" (p 316-318). This does violence to the biblical teaching and applications of what it means to love one's enemies, and what it means to do good to those who harm us. It also does violence to the earliest-and, in my view, most original and authentic-Christian tradition that we have on these matters.
Uploads
Papers by David Hillary
Matthew Malioni claims that this results in a chains of marriages and divorces, when the divorce rate is high, so that we cannot feasibly tell if a person's marriage is "valid," even though one or both parties may have been a divorcee with a living former spouse. The position will reverse every time we find a former spouse of a former spouse was themselves a divorcee.
This paper examines this issue and shows why it does not occur often, and how easily the necessary data can be obtained to do the assessment. The main method of analysis is statistical, to show that only about 0.4% of marriages in a general population will be affected by a "reversal" where a divorcee with a living spouse at the time of the marriage nevertheless ends up with a "valid" marriage, even when the divorce rate is high.
This document was on the website wisereaction.org for some time before it disappeared, and it is republished here to provide access to anyone who would like to read it.
Romans 13:1-7 is a text that is too important to misunderstand. The text has been used to justify the authority of tyrants and as supposedly revealing a general Christian doctrine in favour of a legitimate state authority. By implication it supposedly supports a general Christian doctrine in favour of the legitimate use of legal and judicial coercion to repay wrongdoing here on earth.
This kind of use of the text leads to a range of unnecessary problems.
Firstly, there is no other text in the New Testament in favour of the state as a legitimate authority established by God ‘under Him and over the people’1, and there are a good many texts associating coercive authority as the manifestation of Satan’s domain rather than God’s.2 Furthermore, Jesus claimed ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ (Mat 28:18), and the Paul affirmed but one Lord (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:5).
Secondly, there is nothing in the text or anywhere else in the canon that can be used to refute the application of the text to support the use of state power against heretics as, for example was maintained by Augustine and as practiced in the name of Jesus Christ for centuries.
Thirdly, it flies in the face of reality. State power is not actually used in the manner apparently described, and it is frequently used in just the opposite manner: to reward the well-connected evildoers and to punish the good people who have been unfortunate enough to encounter state officials raising revenue, expanding territory or otherwise imposing their wills and the policies of state on everyone else. The promise of freedom from fear of the one in authority is a promise broken so frequently and conspicuously as to make an ironic reading almost forced.3
These problems, and there are others like them, are unnecessary problems because they are based on an approach to the text that goes against everything the context suggests that it means. We need to start the interpretation process again by getting back into the context – historical, prophetic, theological and polemical – that the text was written in. This paper presents this approach.
Drafts by David Hillary
However, Keener fails to correctly identify the "cultural background" and wrongly takes a permissive approach to divorce and remarriage.
This paper identifies these beasts as forces of disorder, a subset of which are political kingdoms.
The beast-free kingdoms of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant, and under the Kingdom of God are analysed and the latter is developed as the application of the teaching.
The fundamental interpretative question for the Song, then, is what love is the wrong kind and what love is the right kind. This paper shows that the Song teaches that the wrong love is the polygynous kind and the right love is the monogynous kind.
As a Hebrew song and the product of Hebrew culture and history, polygyny is a delicate subject for it to address: not only was Solomon the wisest and greatest Israelite king, he and many other historical Hebrew figures and heroes practiced polygyny. The Song is one of a number of salvos critically addressing the Solomonic 'royal consciousness' with 'prophetic imagination', in which his 1000-woman polygyny looms large (Deut. 17:16-20; 1 Kings 11:1-8; Ecc. 2:8; 7:25-29; 9:9; Song 8:11-12).
This paper addresses the Song in section 1 which explains the method, plot and characters and section 2 which analyses the drama, scenes, images and claims. Section 3 is an addendum showing that Ecclesiastes addresses the same question with the same answer. Section 4 is a further addendum showing that the flood narrative also addresses the same question in a more broad social and political context.
Deut. 22:13-21 and 28-29 teach lifelong marriage and that a husband may 'not divorce her all of his days.' This is the Old Testament lifelong marriage law, in addition to Gen. 2:24, that explains both the law of lifelong marriage and the permission for divorce in Deut. 24:1-4.
This paper addresses both the controversy over 'some indecency' in Deut. 24:1 and porneia in Mat. 5:32 and 19:9, a well as addressing the supposed Pauline privilege of divorce for desertion. It also shows how Ex. 21 teaches time-limited slavery and lifelong marriage in all cases.
As a result, the Old Testament consistently teaches lifelong marriage and restricts divorce to marriages where the parties are jointed together, not by God but by marital fraud or by man in violation of God's laws.
This paper addresses the historical speculations that underlie Instone-Brewer's theory, showing their deficiencies as well as providing an alternative interpretation and exegesis.
This approach is applied to the death penalty for murder, for divorce and remarriage and the kingdom and building regulations.
This paper shows how, why and when the coercive civil law of Moses was fulfilled by the institution of the pacifist law of gentleness and clemency.
Book Reviews by David Hillary
Matthew Malioni claims that this results in a chains of marriages and divorces, when the divorce rate is high, so that we cannot feasibly tell if a person's marriage is "valid," even though one or both parties may have been a divorcee with a living former spouse. The position will reverse every time we find a former spouse of a former spouse was themselves a divorcee.
This paper examines this issue and shows why it does not occur often, and how easily the necessary data can be obtained to do the assessment. The main method of analysis is statistical, to show that only about 0.4% of marriages in a general population will be affected by a "reversal" where a divorcee with a living spouse at the time of the marriage nevertheless ends up with a "valid" marriage, even when the divorce rate is high.
This document was on the website wisereaction.org for some time before it disappeared, and it is republished here to provide access to anyone who would like to read it.
Romans 13:1-7 is a text that is too important to misunderstand. The text has been used to justify the authority of tyrants and as supposedly revealing a general Christian doctrine in favour of a legitimate state authority. By implication it supposedly supports a general Christian doctrine in favour of the legitimate use of legal and judicial coercion to repay wrongdoing here on earth.
This kind of use of the text leads to a range of unnecessary problems.
Firstly, there is no other text in the New Testament in favour of the state as a legitimate authority established by God ‘under Him and over the people’1, and there are a good many texts associating coercive authority as the manifestation of Satan’s domain rather than God’s.2 Furthermore, Jesus claimed ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ (Mat 28:18), and the Paul affirmed but one Lord (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:5).
Secondly, there is nothing in the text or anywhere else in the canon that can be used to refute the application of the text to support the use of state power against heretics as, for example was maintained by Augustine and as practiced in the name of Jesus Christ for centuries.
Thirdly, it flies in the face of reality. State power is not actually used in the manner apparently described, and it is frequently used in just the opposite manner: to reward the well-connected evildoers and to punish the good people who have been unfortunate enough to encounter state officials raising revenue, expanding territory or otherwise imposing their wills and the policies of state on everyone else. The promise of freedom from fear of the one in authority is a promise broken so frequently and conspicuously as to make an ironic reading almost forced.3
These problems, and there are others like them, are unnecessary problems because they are based on an approach to the text that goes against everything the context suggests that it means. We need to start the interpretation process again by getting back into the context – historical, prophetic, theological and polemical – that the text was written in. This paper presents this approach.
However, Keener fails to correctly identify the "cultural background" and wrongly takes a permissive approach to divorce and remarriage.
This paper identifies these beasts as forces of disorder, a subset of which are political kingdoms.
The beast-free kingdoms of Israel under the Sinaitic Covenant, and under the Kingdom of God are analysed and the latter is developed as the application of the teaching.
The fundamental interpretative question for the Song, then, is what love is the wrong kind and what love is the right kind. This paper shows that the Song teaches that the wrong love is the polygynous kind and the right love is the monogynous kind.
As a Hebrew song and the product of Hebrew culture and history, polygyny is a delicate subject for it to address: not only was Solomon the wisest and greatest Israelite king, he and many other historical Hebrew figures and heroes practiced polygyny. The Song is one of a number of salvos critically addressing the Solomonic 'royal consciousness' with 'prophetic imagination', in which his 1000-woman polygyny looms large (Deut. 17:16-20; 1 Kings 11:1-8; Ecc. 2:8; 7:25-29; 9:9; Song 8:11-12).
This paper addresses the Song in section 1 which explains the method, plot and characters and section 2 which analyses the drama, scenes, images and claims. Section 3 is an addendum showing that Ecclesiastes addresses the same question with the same answer. Section 4 is a further addendum showing that the flood narrative also addresses the same question in a more broad social and political context.
Deut. 22:13-21 and 28-29 teach lifelong marriage and that a husband may 'not divorce her all of his days.' This is the Old Testament lifelong marriage law, in addition to Gen. 2:24, that explains both the law of lifelong marriage and the permission for divorce in Deut. 24:1-4.
This paper addresses both the controversy over 'some indecency' in Deut. 24:1 and porneia in Mat. 5:32 and 19:9, a well as addressing the supposed Pauline privilege of divorce for desertion. It also shows how Ex. 21 teaches time-limited slavery and lifelong marriage in all cases.
As a result, the Old Testament consistently teaches lifelong marriage and restricts divorce to marriages where the parties are jointed together, not by God but by marital fraud or by man in violation of God's laws.
This paper addresses the historical speculations that underlie Instone-Brewer's theory, showing their deficiencies as well as providing an alternative interpretation and exegesis.
This approach is applied to the death penalty for murder, for divorce and remarriage and the kingdom and building regulations.
This paper shows how, why and when the coercive civil law of Moses was fulfilled by the institution of the pacifist law of gentleness and clemency.