PAUL AND THE WRATH OF GOD The Dark Side of the Gospel Part IIa
Romans 1:18-32
“Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five Millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.”
“If marriage is in trouble, don’t blame gays. Straights changed the rules.”
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (NIV),
Introduction
Homosexuality is a defining issue of our time and is tearing apart churches and society.
When we commit to a study of a book in the Bible we commit to a “whole” book, not just to its uplifting and “nice” parts, but also to its “inconvenient” passages. Today we face two verses from Romans that are at the heart of a contemporary controversy in the Church and are crucial in the search for what the Bible has to say to us about homosexuality. We read them in the context of the larger passage, verses 18-32:
The Basic Human Condition
[Natural theology?] 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. [Idolatry] 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles. Divine Judgment [Sexual immorality] 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. [Homosexual activity] 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. [“A reprobate mind”] 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (NIV). The intention of this lesson is not to debate the issue of homosexuality or even argue about the biblical position concerning it. Our purpose is simply informative—may we keep it that way, hopefully! Our primary task is to show how Romans 1:26-27 is interpreted by those who accept same-sex committed relationships in the life and ministry of the Christian Church. Second, we will report how William Greathouse and George Lyons deal with our passage in their commentary on Romans. Today, however, we only have time and space for set up—not our original intention, but words do multiply!
So we pay attention first to
I. Transition and overall context
Long ago (1/27/08) we began the major section of Paul’s letter to the Romans, “The Gospel of God's Righteousness (1:16—15:13).” Following Paul’s stated thesis for the letter (1:16-17) comes the section on ”God's Righteousness Needed (1:18—3:20)” concerning which Greathouse comments, God's judgment of all humanity in Rom 1:18—3:20 describes humanity as it appears in the light of the cross of Christ. It is not a description of especially wicked persons only, but the innermost truth of all of us, as we are in ourselves. This section opens with our now to be seven-Sunday (today is #6) preoccupation with “The Human Predicament (1:18-32)” where we have already seen with Emil Brunner that humanity is always under the power of God, either of his grace or his wrath. God’s wrath is the ‘adverse wind’ of the divine will which he comes to feel who runs into it. God also reveals his nearness to the godless creature precisely in his wrath, thereby declaring that he is not mocked. Verses 18-20 raise the crucial theological issue of “Natural Theology, that is, “what can be known of God naturally; that is, what can be known based on human experience.” Paul writes: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. In a series of four lessons Herb Prince has presented us with a masterful historical and theological treatment of the issue of natural theology as raised by the meaning and application of this text. In these lessons Herb defines natural theology in its historical context from Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-1274) to the “theological crisis” of the resounding “Nein” of Karl Barth (1886-1968) and beyond, including the role played by natural theology in the famous Gifford Lectures. Major attention is given to Barth who, against the prevailing influence of Friedrich Schliermacher (1768-1734) on 19th century theological thinking, interpreted Romans theologically from the standpoint of his “biblical” understanding of “special revelation.” Herb helps us to understand the significance of Barth’s “Nein” for this issue in the context of the rise of National Socialism in Germany with the resulting Barmen Declaration as written mostly by Barth. Contemporary with and qualifying Barth’s view were the efforts of theologian Emil Brunner to speak of a point of contact between nature and grace to whose contribution Herb devotes his final lesson on natural theology. Along the way he gives an account of Barth’s own Gifford Lectures (1937-1938) and the critical response of James Barr (1924-2006) to Barth at several points in his Gifford Lectures in 1991. Barr shows that Barth’s work contained “a hidden natural theology” concluding that “a natural theology is perhaps not in itself so bad a thing, but a hidden natural theology accompanied by violent attacks on natural theology is a clear sign that something is wrong.” A footnote from Idaho indicates that theological attention to natural theology continues particularly in the works of John B. Cobb Jr. and the ”process” theologians and continues to be very much alive in the current theological scene. In reference to Herb’s discussion we conclude that “Yes, God can be known through nature.” There is a connection between nature and grace as the God of grace is also the God of Creation, but in Wesleyan terms (I believe) nature can only reveal God as prevenient grace, the hidden Christ, is leading mind and heart. As the text goes on to declare, apart from this grace the cardinal or root condition of humanity is their idolatry: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore, Paul’s essential point in verses 18-32 is that human unrighteousness
consists fundamentally in a refusal to honor God and render him thanks (1:21). . . . The genius of Paul's analysis lies in his refusal to posit a catalog of sins as the cause of human alienation from God. Instead, he delves to the root: all other depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the creature against the Creator (1:24-31). As Ernst Käsemann comments, "Paul paradoxically reverses the cause and consequence: moral perversion is the result of God's wrath, not the reason for it.” This means for Paul that ”Humanity's Moral Depravity (1:24-32),” displayed in mankind’s irreverence and insubordination in relation to the Divine Being, finds its illustration in its “Sensuality (1:24-25),” in its “Sexual Perversion (1:26-27),” and in its “Antisocial Living (1:28-32)”—again, the expressions of idolatry-- God gave them up (NRSV; vv 24, 26, 28; see Psalm 81:12)! As Brunner comments, “The original perversion of man’s relationship to God is followed by the perversion of all human relationships.” Greathouse adds that “for Paul depravity is not expressed primarily in the character flaws of weak, perverse individuals, but in interpersonal relations and social systems gone amuck.” As we approach our problem text we keep in mind the insistence of Barth that “Paul is not speaking from a general, human point of view, but from the viewpoint of the Gospel,” as Paul sees the consequences of human idolatry not only in humanity’s “Sensuality (1:24-25)” and their “Antisocial Living (1:28-32)” but crucially for our day in their
II. Sexual Perversion (vv 26-27)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (NIV),
Richard Hays affirms this as “the most crucial text for Christian ethics concerning homosexuality . . . because this is the only passage in the New Testament that explains the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological context.” The BIG QUESTION is then, “What was Paul talking about in 1st century culture and how does this text as authoritative Scripture relate to us in our day?”
1.
According to Jack Rogers “the current debate about homosexuality in the church . . . focuses on, at most, eight texts: Genesis 19:1-29; Judges 19:1-30; Leviticus 18:1-30; Leviticus 20:1-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-17; 1 Timothy 1:3-13; Jude 1-25; and Romans 1.” Before we give our attention to the Romans’ passage, a quick look is in order as to how the other texts can be more easily removed either rightly or wrongly from relevance to the current controversy.
In Genesis 19:1-29, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Judges 19:1-30, the rape of the Levite’s concubine, Rogers judgment is that “the best available scholarship shows that these texts have nothing to do with homosexuality as such.” The reasons he gives are that homosexual rape (by a heterosexual male) in ancient culture was a traditional way of humiliating defeated foes and strangers, that is, to treat them like women, the inferior sex. In the ancient Near East the critical issue, it is said, was not sexuality but gender, for it was important that the superior position of men over women be maintained, one expressed by the nature of heterosexual act. The issue is the violation of hospitality by violence, the means being homosexual rape, a tertiary issue in the use of this text.
In Leviticus 18:1-30 and 20:1-27 we are dealing with direct prohibitions: “do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (18:22) and “if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them . . . must be put to death” (20:13). It is claimed that “detestable” is “not a moral or ethical term,” for these prohibitions are found in the Israelite Holiness code (cc. 17-26) whose major concern is the maintenance of the “holy purity” that “was considered necessary to distinguish the Israelites from their pagan neighbors.” They were not to defile themselves by pagan practices nor were they to mix with any other kind of people or adopt their alien customs if they were to remain pure. Hays reminds us here that we cannot always easily distinguish between purity law and moral law in the Holiness Code (see on incest, 18:16-18).
A third issue in achieving ritual purity according to Rogers was that “male gender superiority had to be maintained.” Walter Wink notes that in that culture “when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised,” both for himself and every other male. A further consideration, he writes, is that those “persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed,” thus “anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts.” Some also suggests that the dilemma here “in making this Levitical text normative for faith is what we do with other prohibitions in the same material.” Still, one cannot escape the fact that the prohibition of male homosexual activity was the normative or traditional view of the Old Testament and Jewish heritage based on these and similar texts.
As we come to the consideration of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy 1:3-13, remember that our purpose has been “only” to see how these two texts are thought not to bear on the current debate. In these two vice lists the issue focuses on the two Greek terms malakos (1 Cor 6:9) and arsenokoites (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), terms considered by Wink as “ambiguous” as they appear here isolated without any defining context. Since their meaning is not clear Rogers, having consulted several recent scholarly studies, agrees with the conclusion of Nissinen that
the modern concept of ‘homosexuality’ should by no means be read into Paul’s text, nor can we assume that Paul’s words in I Corinthians 6:9 ‘condemn all homosexual relations’ in all times and places and way. The meanings of the word are too vague to justify this claim, and Paul’s words should not be used for generalizations that go beyond his experience and world.
Hays notes that although the word malakos is not a technical term meaning “homosexuals” (there were none in Greek or Hebrew), the term “appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the passive partners—often young boys—in homosexual activity.” Sehested maintains that “there is considerable evidence that the language used indicates a condemnation of pederasty—the sexual and/or economic exploitation of children, particularly young boys—rather than against homosexual activity per se.”
The term arsenokoites in Greek literature is found first in 1 Corinthians and according to Hays was coined from the appearance of the two words in the Greek (LXX) of Leviticus 20:13 (meta arsaenos koitēn gynaikos = “lies with a man as with a woman”). Thus here as in 1Timothy 1:10 it would presuppose the Old Testament prohibition. This connection has been denied by other scholars on linguistic grounds and understood as referring to some kind of economic exploitation probably by sexual means.
We are now ready—next time!—to face Romans 1 head on. Just a hint as to the direction we are compelled to head is the introductory statement of Jack Rogers:
The conflict over the meaning of biblical texts becomes acute when we look at Romans 1. Some conservative scholars who dismiss the relevance of the seven previously discussed texts to the issue of homosexuality argue that Romans 1 is a theological statement that has direct application for our time. I believe, however, that a close and careful look at the text, using the best methods of biblical interpretation, will reveal that Paul is making a statement about idolatry, not sexuality per se, and that Paul’s writings also reflect many of the cultural assumptions of his time.
See you May 18!
2 William M. Greathouse: Outline I. Letter Prescript (1:1-15) II. The Gospel of God's Righteousness (1:16—15:13) The Thesis of the Letter (1:16-17) A. God's Righteousness Needed (1:18—3:20) 1. The Human Predicament (1:18-32) a. Introduction: The Wrath of God (1:18) b. Humanity's Original Sin (1:19-23) c. Humanity's Moral Depravity (1:24-32) (1) Sensuality (1:24-25) (2) Sexual Perversion (1:26-27) (3) Antisocial Living (1:28-32) 2. God's Righteous Judgment (2:1-16) 3. The Challenge to Jews (2:17-29) 4. The Advantage of the Jews (3:1-8) 5. No One Is Righteous (3:9-20) B. God's Righteousness Provided (3:21—8:39) C. God's Righteousness in History (9:1—11:36) D. God's Righteousness in Practice (12:1—15:13) III. Conclusion: Romans 15:14—16:27 James Dobson, March 24, 2004, radio broadcast. His concerns were the confusion of traditional gender roles and acceptance of homosexual relationships. Quoted from Jack Rodgers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 15. Jack Rodgers is Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and Moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Earlier, he was Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary for 17 years. Barabara Kantrowitz, “State of our Unions,” Newsweek (March 1, 2005), 44. Quoted from Rodgers, 102. From recent studies Rodgers, 102-103, reports: “In the last hundred years, the United States has gone from being the most marrying society in the world to the one with the most divorces and single-parent families. . . . An estimated one-third of American children live without their biological fathers present. . . . A Barna poll in 2001 found that cohabitation—living with a member of the opposite sex without marriage—has been practiced at some time by 33 percent of all adults and 25 percent of born-again Christians. . . . Evangelical pollster George Barna found that during the 1990s born-again Christians had higher divorce rates than non-Christians.” The observation with which Rogers, Homosexuality, justifies his extensive treatment of the issue. For example when preaching and teaching from Isaiah 6:1-13 we like to limit ourselves to verses 1-8; and in Psalm 139 we skip over verses 19-22! KJV for “a depraved mind” (NIV). NRSV has “debased mind” (adokimon noûn). The two volume set is now available at www.beaconhillbooks.com for $39.99. They sell individually for $29.99, a $20 savings. The volume on Jeremiah is also available at a reduced price. William M. Greathouse with George Lyons, Romans 1-8: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary, edited by George Lyons, general editors Alex Aarughese and Roger Hahn (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2008), 68. Reflecting C. E. B, Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, vol. I, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 104. First lesson on 1:18 ff. was given on March 2, 2008): “Paul and the Wrath of God: The Dark Side of the Gospel, Part I” Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans, tran. H. A. Kennedy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 17. See lesson for March 2, 2008. Herb Prince, “Faith Subjected to Thought But More: Part III,” (March 9, 2008). March 9 and 30, April 4 and 13, 2008. The Gifford lectures is “one of the oldest and most highly esteemed lectureships in the modern era, . . an internationally known lectureship devoted to natural theology. First given in 1888 the lectures were established by Adam Lord Gifford (1820-1887), a senator of the College of Justice in Scotland.” To support the lectures he donated $11,000,000. See Herb Prince, “Faith Subjected to Thought But More: Part III,” (March 9, 2008). James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Clarenden Press, 1993, 132. Quoted from Herb Prince, “Faith Subjected To Thought But More: Part V”(April 6, 2008). “The recent series on natural theology centered on events during the 1930s in Europe. Lessons could have been extended down to the present, especially with American interests in mind. For example, a number of faculty members at Methodist-related institutions, such as Boston University, the University of Southern California, and the School of Theology at Claremont, offered updated, empirical versions of natural theology. Worth noting is the 1965 publication of John B. Cobb Jr’s A Christian Natural Theology (Westminster Press). Based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, Cobb’s book received critical acclaim in Protestant theological circles for its process perspective. Cobb’s book has just appeared in a second edition (2007). Lord Gifford might not recognize the forms natural theology has taken since the 1880s but he would no doubt appreciate the academic rigor being shown in what has transpired since his time.” (Herb Prince e-mail 5/1/08) Greathouse, Romans, 82, quoting Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 384-385. Brunner, Romans, 18. Greathouse, Romans, 79. Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1959), 24: “When God and man . . . meet, as happens in the preaching and hearing of the Gospel, then it is inevitable that the opposition between God and man becomes visible: God’s opposition to man’s opposition to God.” Ibid., 27. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 383. Hays is professor of New Testament at Duke University Divinity School. He is noted for his work in the fields of New Testament Ethics and Pauline theology. For present purposes the only answer we will give to the second part of this question is that found in the Greathouse/Lyons commentary. Rogers, Homosexuality, 69. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 deals with cult prostitution. It should be noted too that there is no clear reference to lesbian behavior in scripture apart from its presence in Romans 1:26. Ibid., 71. Ibid., 70-71. See also Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Walter Wink, ed., Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 34. In this same series of essays see also Ken Sehested, “Biblical Fidelity and Sexual Orientation: Why the First Matters, Why the Second Doesn’t,’ 55l. Sehested, “Biblical Fidelity,” 56. Rogers, Homosexuality, 72. Hays, Moral Vision, 382. Rogers, Homosexuality, 72. Wink, Homosexuality, 35. He notes that some Christians are urging this very thing. Sehested, “Biblical Fidelity,” 56. Hays, Moral Vision, 391-382. Jude 5-7 has more to do with sexual intercourse between angels and humans than between humans. See Rogers, Homosexuality, 75-76. “effeminate” [by perversion] (NASB), “male prostitutes” (NIV; NRSV). 1 Cor. 6:9: “homosexuals” (NASB), “homosexual offenders” (NIV), “sodomites” (NRSV). 1 Tim. 1:10: “homosexuals” (NASB), “perverts” (NIV), “sodomites” (NRSV). Wink, Homosexuality, 34. Rogers, Homosexuality, 75, quoting Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 118. Hays, Moral Vision, 382. Sehested, “Biblical Fidelity,” 56. Hays, Moral Vision, 382-383. Rogers, Homosexuality, 74. Ibid., 76.
5.2.12 DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 5/11/2011 TIME \@ "h:mm:ss am/pm" 2:23:34 PM
PAGE 100 Romans 5, May 4, 2008 fgc sdfc c&g