Does Paul Condemn Homosexuality?

In celebration of my soon to be released book, What Did Jesus Do, I am posting a portion from chapter three, discussing how Christian leaders have mis-represented the Bible at times, interpreting it in ways it was not intended. In this section I discuss how Romans 1 is so often used to condemn homosexual behavior, when that is not the purpose of the passage at all. Here I go in-depth explaining what Paul's purpose is and how we can better interpret the Bible today. Enjoy!

One of the most commonly twisted passages in Scripture today comes from Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This passage is often quoted in order to bring judgment and condemnation on homosexuals for their behavior which, in turn, makes them feel alienated from the Church. When Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality, and are asked, “where is homosexuality prohibited in the bible?” they invariably point to these verses as the authority that once and for all condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will not deny that this passage is describing same sex behavior. There is no doubt that this passage says women and men traded natural relations with the opposing sex for unnatural relations with the same sex. What is important is to take this passage in its context. Within the book of Romans, Paul is engaged in an argument in which he is describing God’s saving activity in which He brings humankind back into a right relationship with himself. He is laying out a logical argument in which he is showing why the saving act of Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for us to be brought back into the intended relationship with God. Paul is arguing in Romans 1-7 that the reason we need Jesus to be brought back into right relationship with God is because all of humankind has lost this right relationship by entering into sin. This passage is understood better when we go back earlier in the first chapter of Romans. The crux of Paul’s argument comes in vv 17-18 where Paul begins, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith,’” and then goes on to say, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” Beginning verse 18 with “for” Paul is using verse 18 to support verse 17 (Moo, 1996, 99). The righteousness of God is God’s saving activity to bring all of humankind back into a right relationship with him.32 This saving activity, as it is revealed later in Romans, was Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection (Romans 3:22, 24, 26; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11, 34, 39; 10:9). If verse 18 is supporting verse 17, then what this passage is saying is that God’s righteousness was revealed in Jesus because of the wickedness of men and women which revealed God’s wrath. Because of God’s wrath being revealed in the wickedness of humankind, God’s righteousness was revealed through Jesus’ death and resurrection. In other words, because of the wickedness of humankind, God’s wrath filled the earth. In order to end His wrath, it was necessary to send Jesus to die on the cross and rise from the dead in order to bring humankind back into right relationship with God.

What is important is that in verse 18 we read, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (emphasis added). Paul is not singling anyone out in the list of sinful behavior that follows. Paul is trying to point to the underlying sin in all humankind that makes God’s saving act in Jesus necessary. We read in Moo’s commentary that “Verse 18...begins with a universal indictment: all people stand condemned under the wrath of God” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is going to argue for universal condemnation as the state of humankind prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans is a letter directed mainly to the Jewish Christians in the Roman church, and one of the issues Paul is addressing is the feeling of superiority the Jewish Christians had over the Gentile Christians.33 Essentially, Paul is laying out an argument that will put the Jewish Christians on an equal plane with the Gentiles. The way Paul does this is by setting up a case against the Gentiles in chapter one, placing the Jews in a superior, yet vulnerable, position, and then pulling their superiority out from under them. Paul, then, begins his argument at the end of chapter one, which serves to condemn the Gentiles. Moo supports this with two points: 1. “the passage is reminiscent of Jewish apologetic arguments in which Gentile idolatry was derided and the moral sins of the Gentile world were traced to that idolatry,” and 2. “the knowledge of God rejected by those depicted in 1:18-32 comes solely through ‘natural revelation’” whereas the Jews were “responsible for the special revelation they have been given in the law” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is trying to bait the Jewish Christians in Rome to feel condemning of the Gentiles for their “sinful” behavior because he is trying to prove a point. The point comes with a twist in Romans 2:1 where Paul says, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things” (emphasis mine). The situation Paul is describing in chapters one and two is the situation as it would look before the saving act of Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is trying to tell the church in Rome that all are condemned without Jesus regardless of what their behavior is. We are all on an equal footing without Jesus, and we are therefore all on an equal footing with Jesus. So what we have in Romans 1-2 is a depiction of the sinful state of humanity as a whole (the Gentile and the Jew) which, therefore, needs the saving grace of God through the act of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We are smart to remember that Paul goes on to say in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). Paul was not singling out any sin in Romans as wrong, or as being worse than any other. In fact what he was doing was placing all sins on an equal plane. He was simply describing the state of fallen human kind. Therefore it manipulates Scripture to point to Romans 1 as a prohibition of homosexuality and, therefore, a justification of excluding them from worship in our churches. We might as well exclude everyone from worship in our churches since all have sinned.

It is really interesting that the passage many Church leaders point to as a judgment against homosexuality is a passage which, in its context, condemns those who judge sinful behavior. This passage says there is no difference between sinners. Moo discusses the fact that homosexuality being singled out in Romans 1 has to do with the fact that this is not something Jews would have participated in because of how ingrained it was in their culture that homosexual behavior was impure and sinful. Yet Paul says that the Jews, in their own sinfulness, have done the same things (Romans 2:1; Moo, 1996, 113-117). What this passage in Romans does, more than anything, is condemn us today for doing the same thing the Jews were doing in the church in Rome, considering ourselves superior because we have the law on our side, when in fact the sins we have committed have made us just as guilty.

Again, the point of Paul's letters is not to condemn people, but to show people how truly loving, and merciful, and compassionate God is. Let us begin showing this side of God to people.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Easter and the Crucifixion of Jesus

With Easter coming up on Sunday I've been thinking a lot about Jesus' death and what he died for. I think it is often helpful in my spiritual walk at times to try and reframe some of my beliefs, not necessarily to overrule them, but to help me think of new ways a particular doctrine might be relevant.

Jesus' death is often associated with salvation for wrongs done. The question arises "why did Jesus die on the cross," and the answers come pouring in: "he took on himself the sins of the world," "he received the punishment that was due us," "he paid the debt we owed." And so it goes that the most often given answer for the reason of Jesus' death was to somehow atone for wrongs done.

Now, if you read my last blog, you know that I had a way of reframing sin as a person's hurts rather than bad behavior. This view causes us to feel empathy toward "sinners" rather than condemnation. What if we used this reframing as a way of looking at Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus did not die to atone for sins but to bear our pains and our burdens. Jesus wasn't receiving punishment, but was taking upon himself the hurts of humankind.

We read in Isaiah 53:4 that the Messiah would "[take] up our pain and [bare] our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted." This prophetic passage even addresses that we will miss part of the point of the death of Jesus. Now, I do not deny that Jesus' death was in part done to atone for our sins. I am simply looking at an additional way his death can be viewed.

This view makes God the Father less of a cruel God who would make his son take on the punishment of the world, and more of a compassionate God that would allow his son to bear our pain and our suffering; maybe because he knows Jesus can take it.

Each one of us has a burden to bare that brings us pain. Sometimes this results in addiction, sometimes behavioral problems, and sometimes mental problems. I want all of you to know that you are good just the way you are and that God has felt our pain by suffering on the cross. By his resurrection, he showed that with him we can overcome the burdens we bare. Unlike the message we so often receive from the Christian Church, Jesus is full of love and compassion and cares about each one of us with no amount of judgment or criticism.
Blessings and happy Easter,
-Brandon

Sin: It's Not What You Think It Is

During much of this past week I've been thinking a lot about the concept of sin. I understand that sin is a concept that is clearly addressed in the Bible, but I am wondering how much that concept has been misinterpreted and misused over the past two thousand years. Traditionally the term sin has denoted wrongs committed and has been used for the purpose of condemnation and has caused the alienation of many people because of the so-called sins they have committed. So how can we look at sin differently that might help clear things up and portray scripture in a more accurate light?

Last week I discussed sin as being a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. What if we look at sin this week as a hurt or a pain that one experiences? One of the definitions for the Greek word typically translated as sin is "to miss the mark," or "to be without a share in." These are both things that cause a great deal of distress and pain in the person who misses the mark and is without a share in. So it is reasonable that "sin" refers to a hurt of some kind which may result in bad behavior.

I think this is a better definition because it doesn't allow for the exclusion of someone because of a sin, but instead welcomes greater love and compassion toward sinners. Defined the traditional way, sin tends to bring about criticism by people for the way a sinner might live his or her life. If you are gay you are seen as a sinner by many in the church who will then shun you. If you have had an abortion, you will be excluded from certain church groups. The pastor gets up to the pulpit on Sundays and preaches against sin, bringing about a feeling of condemnation in those who are in the pews.

Defined in this new way, sin breeds a sense of empathy from those who sense the pain of the "sinner". Instead of creating an atmosphere of exclusion, sin now brings people together because people want to help those who are in pain. When we view sin not as a wrong committed but a pain felt, it lends itself to a more loving church body that wants to bring in sinners instead of keeping them away.

This interpretation also changes how we interpret the saving act of Jesus's crucifixion. Instead of Jesus being punished for our sins, an interpretation which breeds more guilt in me than relief, Jesus bears our burdens and our pain, making what we bear a little less burdensome. This accords with the words of Scripture where Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden light, easing our burdens. It also is in tune with Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic passage about the Messiah, which reads, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.". Not only does this prophetic passage interpret sin in the new way we have interpreted it here, but it also predicts that we would interpret sin in the traditional way in which we have by calling the crucifixion a punishment from God for our sins. It seems to me this newer way of interpreting sin is more biblical than the traditional way.

But what about those passages in the Bible where Jesus and John the Baptist are telling people to repent and turn away from their sin? Here is how that comes to be translated. The term "repent" means to turn away from one thing and towards another. What these men are saying is that I can turn away from my pain and face Jesus where I will receive comfort. When repentance is called upon by us, it is repentance from our hurts toward a man of compassion, Jesus Christ, from whom we can be healed and comforted from all of the pain that we experience in this life. Won't you repent with me and turn away from what is causing you pain, to receiving the ultimate healing from Jesus?
Blessings,
-Brandon