Interpreting Hard Passages

Sermon by: Rev. Mary Alice Mulligan, Ph.D.

Scripture: Romans 1:20-2:1, Luke 7:1-10

Following last week’s celebration of Open and Affirming Sunday, we will listen to a couple of misunderstood passages of scripture today and continue our ONA journey. The sermon will be a little different – more like a Bible study of two passages and then a meditation. (1)

Most UCC pastors have never preached on Romans 1:26-27. The lectionary even invites us to avoid it. On June 4, the epistle lection began with Romans 1:16-17, then jumped to chapter 3 verses 22b-31. They carefully skipped the clobber passage we will hear today (1:20-2:1). Conservative preachers may be comfortable using this as a preaching text, but not the rest of us. Romans 1 is a painfully difficult passage to unpack. Pastors and scholars alike will cite Romans 1:26-27 as the most controversial biblical passage about sexual behavior and the most difficult.

As a prelude to our investigation, there are 31,000 verses in the Bible. Only six of them refer to same-sex behavior in any way. And none of those verses is spoken by Jesus. As we learned last week, nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to homosexual orientation, because the concept of “orientation” was not formulated until 1864 (by Karl Heinrich Ulrich), and the term “homosexual” as a class of persons was not coined until even later. (2) Holding on to this information, let’s listen and work to uncover the word of God in Romans 1:20-2:1.

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

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.

Let’s start our investigation by acknowledging that God created us as sexual beings, to take pleasure in our bodies, and to be able to share this divine gift. However, the Bible clarifies that our passions need to be controlled. The first chapter of Romans explains the necessity of honoring who God is and discusses how God’s ways must take precedence over seeking our own pleasure. The verses we just read address what happens to those who reject God’s way; those who know what is right but choose to do wrong. We need to be very clear that Romans 1 is written to condemn idolatry. Not same sex behavior. When people turn away from God, Paul says, God allows their overwhelming lust to have its way. So, the condemnation has nothing to say to those who are committed to God.

Many scholars today agree that same sex behavior was common in ancient society. One 1st century source states it is not same sex behavior that is condemned but insatiable sexual desire.(3) Scholars claim Paul assumed the people referred to were having regular sex with a hetero partner, but their desire was so strong they sought out not merely their marriage partners, but other partners over whom they had power to let loose their lust (slavers and enslaved persons, older people and younger, as we might condemn a professor who seduces a student). One other scholar said Paul is not condemning sex, but lustful excess as opposed to moderation (a big 1st century virtue). It wasn’t that they desired another person, but that they were consumed with passion for another. Quite different from modern understandings of homosexual or heterosexual orientation, with a healthy desire for intimacy, commitment, and companionship.

But what about Paul’s use of “natural” and “unnatural”? In the ancient world, patriarchy was a firm part of their culture. Men being in charge was called “natural.” Today, most Christians would not say strict patriarchy is God’s will for the world, not that women should be considered property, should not be allowed to own property or work for money. But in the first century, according to the patriarchal system, men’s dominance and women’s passivity was considered “natural.” Paul is explaining that when people turn away from God, their lustful passions are set loose and “unnatural” acts result. In the first century, for the man to take the dominant role in any sexual encounter was considered “natural,” and for a woman to take a passive role was “natural.” Regardless of who their partner was, if a woman took dominance or a man took a passive role, it was considered unnatural. In fact, verse 26 says women exchanged natural for unnatural behavior, but it doesn’t say with whom. For the woman to take the dominant role with a man was considered unnatural. And by the way, walking backwards was on the ancient list of unnatural behaviors.(4) For a person to follow culturally determined gender roles was “natural.” So, we can feel confident saying Paul is not talking about homosexual orientations or loving same-sex partnerships. New Testament professor, James Brownson, concludes: “What is degrading and shameless about the behavior described in Romans1:24-27 is that it is driven by excessive, self-seeking lust, that it knows no boundaries or restraints, and that it violates established gender roles of that time and culture, understood in terms of masculine rationality and honor.”(5)

Let’s take a breath. That was a lot about one passage, but it is the passage used most often to clobber the queer community. So now, instead of picking apart another clobber passage, let’s look at a neglected story which most probably affirms a loving gay relationship. The passage we heard at the beginning of worship from Luke 7.

After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.” And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.  

Early in his ministry, Jesus returns to the place he was first treated well, Capernaum, where he is confronted with a request for a healing. Chris Glaser, Robert Goss, and other commentators give a queer interpretation of this scene, translating the Greek, and reminding us of Graeco-Roman society so we can figure out a clearer relationship between the centurion and the one whose role is translated as servant/slave. The Greek has adjectives indicating the servant is precious (entimos), beyond merely being valued as a good worker or a trustworthy servant. He apparently lives in the house, even when he is sick. The one who is ill is beloved of the centurion, which makes sense since centurions were not allowed to be married during their military service. Having a sexual-romantic relationship with a young male servant was typical and socially completely acceptable. In fact, such a relationship was sometimes considered a normal part of a young man’s maturation. Modern biblical and cultural scholars tell us the first century listeners would have known immediately what sort of relationship the two men had. We might also note that some interpreters note the centurion’s concern for an ill servant was unusual, if the servant were merely a servant. A Roman person of power, lowering himself to send to an itinerate rabbi, one of the occupied Jews, asking for help, for his doulos (servant/slave)? Must have been a pretty valuable, we might say important, slave. Chris Glaser and others are quite convinced that this was a committed, loving relationship. The centurion was eager for the man to be healed.

Now we know that often when Jesus heals someone, he concludes it with a particular command: “Go and sin no more.” But he says nothing of the sort this time. He heals the beloved servant and says: “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” The centurion’s faith in the power of Jesus is held up as a model for the Jewish community. His faith surpasses anyone’s in Israel. There is no hint that Jesus disapproves of their relationship.

So what are we to learn from these interpretations? First, when someone tries to clobber a person with the Bible, we need to tell them to stop. The Bible doesn’t say that. They may not listen long enough to be convinced, but you have made the witness. And that matters.

If they do listen, your help in stretching their biblical knowledge matters. If Romans 1 is about turning away from God and unbridled lust, then that can be about anyone regardless of orientation. And it is not addressing anyone committed to God, whose passions are controlled, regardless of orientation. The point of Paul’s letter to the Romans is to encourage them in their love of God and their commitment to Jesus Christ. It invites them to live lives worthy of God’s unconditional commitment to them. Which means, as we read Romans, we are to be encouraged in our love of God and our commitment to Jesus Christ. It invites us to live lives worthy of God’s unconditional commitment to us – no matter who we are, no matter who we love, no matter how we present ourselves, or what we have done in our lives. We are loved and accepted unconditionally, so let’s spread God’s love around.

1) Primary sources used include: Thomas Hanks, “Romans” and Robert Goss, “Luke” in Queer Bible Commentary; Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships (Convergent Books, 2014); Mel White, Soulforce: What the Bible Says and Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality (Soulforce, Lynchburg, VA); C E B Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, (Eerdmans, 1985); Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Romans” in Women’s Bible Commentary, expanded edition, Carol Newsom and Sharon Ringe, ed. (WJK, 1992).

2) Mel White, Soulforce, 17.

3) Dio Chrysostom, quoted in Matthew Vines, 104-105.

4) Matthew Vines, 112.

5) James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, 2013, quoted in Matthew Vines, 113.

6) Robert Goss, “Luke” Queer Bible Commentary, 538.