The Authority of Scripture in the “Homosex”
Debate
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
rgagnon@pts.edu
Associate Professor of New Testament,
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Note: This
is an expanded version of a presentation made to the Southeastern ELCA
synod in Atlanta on June 1, 2002.
I want to begin the discussion, first, by offering a “mainline view”
of biblical authority, where due weight is given to Scripture’s core
values; second, by discussing what the best analogies are to changing or
retaining Scripture’s views on homosexual practice; third, by examining
how Jesus himself understood the double love commandment; and, fourth, by
examining Paul’s views on law and grace.
I. A Mainline View: Giving Due Weight to the Core
Values of Scripture
It may be helpful to
begin by saying something about how I come to Scripture. Some on both the
right and the left of the homosexuality debate may be discomfited by the
fact that I do not approach this sensitive subject as a biblical
fundamentalist or inerrantist. I make full use of historical-critical
methodology, see development and significant tensions within the canon,
take account of metaphors and the imaginative power of stories, and
recognize the necessity of interpreting texts anew in our contemporary
context. This last named step of “translating” the Bible into our own day,
of developing principles of interpretation for moving from “what it meant”
to “what it means,” is called hermeneutics. I consider the hermeneutical
aspect of the homosexuality debate so important that I devote a third of
my book to it. One cannot rule out change, particularly when it involves
going further than the biblical witness without radically contravening it.
Women’s ordination is a case in point.
When all is said and
done, however, Scripture must retain its status as the single most
important authority for faith and practice. The great Reformers recognized
the primacy of Scripture for the church. If that primacy counts for
anything, certainly it counts for core values. The question then arises:
what constitutes a core value?
Certainly to be
included among Scripture’s core values are values that are held
- pervasively throughout
Scripture (at least implicitly),
- absolutely (without
exceptions), and . . .
- strongly (as a matter
of significance).
This applies all the
more in instances where:
- such values emerged in
opposition to prevailing cultural trends and . . .
- prevailed in the
church for two millennia.
The limitation of
acceptable sexual intercourse to sexually complementary partners and the
strong abhorrence of same-sex intercourse is just such a value.
What is the bottom
line here? It is this: If the authority of Scripture means anything, those
who seek to overturn its core values must meet an extraordinary burden of
proof. The evidence adduced must not only be so strong and unambiguous
that it makes the strong and unambiguous witness of Scripture pale by
comparison; it must also directly refute the reasons for the Bible’s
position.
For example, it is
not enough to prove that the primary expression of homosexuality in
antiquity was an inherently exploitative form (pederasty or cult
prostitution) or that modern science has demonstrated that homosexuality
is primarily a genetic phenomenon—two dubious claims. One must also prove
that the Bible condemned homosexual practice primarily on the
grounds of the exploitative mismatch created by pederasty or on the
grounds that homosexual behavior was a willfully chosen rejection of God’s
design for sexuality. Otherwise, even if these claims were valid (and they
are not), they would still have little relevance for ascertaining the
deficiencies in the Bible’s reasons for condemning homosexual behavior. As
it is, none of these points can be substantiated. There were
non-exploitative models for same-sex intercourse in antiquity (by ancient
standards) and the Bible’s critique of same-sex intercourse was not
aimed primarily at typically exploitative features. Modern science has not
demonstrated that homosexuality is a direct result of conditions present
at birth and the notion of a partially innate character to
homoerotic desires fits quite well with a number of ancient theories and
Pauline perspectives on sin generally.
II. The Proper Use of Analogies
Yet are there not
instances where we have deviated from Scripture’s stance, including the
New Testament? The analogies usually cited are slavery, women’s roles, and
divorce. As with any application of analogies, the key question is: what
are the best analogies? There are significant points of difference between
these alleged analogies and the Bible’s stance on homosexual practice.
As regards slavery
and women’s roles:
- There is tension
within the canon itself on these issues; there is no scriptural tension
on the question of homosexual behavior.
- Moreover, the Bible’s
stance on slavery and women’s roles looks fairly liberating in relation
to the broader cultural contexts out of which the Bible emerged. The
exact opposite is the case for the Bible’s stance on homosexual
practice. Scripture is far less accommodating to homosexual practice
than the surrounding cultures and remains so throughout the history of
Judeo-Christian faith covered by the canon. The trajectory is entirely
in the direction of countercultural disapproval of all homoerotic
dimensions to human sexuality.
As for divorce:
- Here too, while
Scripture’s stance on same-sex intercourse is unequivocal, there is
tension within Scripture on the question of divorce. The Old Testament
permits divorce and both Matthew and Paul make exceptions to Jesus’
teachings.
- Even more to the
point, neither Scripture nor the contemporary church celebrates divorce
as part of the glorious diversity of the body of Christ. Divorce and
same-sex intercourse share in common the fact that both are forgivable
sins for those who repent. The church works to end the cycle of divorce
and remarriage, just as it ought to work towards the goal of ending the
cycle of serial, unrepentant same-sex intercourse. Mainline
denominations take a dim view of candidates for ordination who have had
a string of divorces. Why, then, should they look the other way when a
candidate for ordination not only has repeatedly engaged in same-sex
intercourse in the past but also plans to continue such practice on a
recurring basis? It is the serial and unrepentant character of much
homosexual behavior that sets it apart from divorce issue.
I propose that the
best analogies are those that most closely correlate with the distinctive
elements of the Bible’s opposition to same-sex intercourse:
- sexual behavior
- proscribed by both
Testaments and pervasively within each Testament (at least implicitly)
- strongly and
absolutely proscribed
- with the proscription
making sense
Here we would
include among analogies the Bible’s stance against adultery, prostitution,
incest, and bestiality—all forms of sexual behavior that the church
continues to proscribe. Incest is a particularly strong analogue, not only
because it elicits comparable revulsion in Scripture—actually less
revulsion than for same-sex intercourse—but also because the reason for
its proscription is comparable. Why is incest wrong, even when it is
conducted between committed consenting adults? The Levitical proscriptions
make clear why: first and foremost it is sex with the “flesh one’s own
flesh” (Lev 18:6). A “one-flesh” union—that is, the establishment of
kinship across blood lines—cannot be created between two people who are
already of the same “flesh,” i.e., close blood relations. Incest is sex
with someone who is too much of a “like” or “same” on the familial level.
Similarly, same-sex intercourse is proscribed because it is sex with a
non-complementary sexual “same” or “like.”
The weakness of a
number of arguments commonly used to advocate homosexual unions becomes
apparent when the same arguments are applied to incest.
- As with male-male
intercourse, incest is strongly proscribed in Levitical law, incurring
the death penalty. We do not say: “Incest is just an outdated purity
rule like some other legislation in Leviticus.” Nor do we say: “The fact
that incest is regarded as a capital crime in Leviticus is reason enough
to disregard altogether the Levitical stance against incest per se.”
No, we recognize that in the dispensation of the new covenant, Paul (and
undoubtedly Jesus) maintained rigorous opposition to incest. Paul did
not apply the death penalty to incest, just as Jesus did not apply the
death penalty prescribed by Mosaic law to the case of the adulterous
woman in John 8:1-11. Yet both maintained that serial unrepentant sexual
sin, including incest and adultery, could get one excluded from the
kingdom of God and thrown into hell—a fate worse than capital punishment
in this life (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9; 1 Thess 4:3-8; Eph
5:3-5; Matt 5:27-32). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argued that the
incestuous man should be subject to the discipline of the church—here
temporary exclusion from the life of the believing community—in the hope
of saving his spirit on the day of judgment. Capital punishment for
sexual immorality is deferred in the new covenant not because sexual
immorality is regarded as a light matter but because a dead person
cannot repent and so be saved for God’s coming eternal kingdom. Today
there might be some quibbling over how much time to give a person an
opportunity to repent before implementing church discipline, what form
the discipline should take, and whether to apply it only to church
officers or to members as well. But there would be little disagreement
that the church should stand solidly against incestuous behavior, even
in committed adult relationships. So the passage of two millennia does
not significantly alter the contemporary church’s stance on this
comparable core value in sexual ethics. Why then should we alter it for
same-sex intercourse?
- Cross-culturally we
know that most people develop an early instinctive aversion to incest.
But some do not. Who would choose to have incestuous desires if it were
purely a matter of choice? How then can anyone with incestuous desires
be held morally accountable for acting on them? Most recognize that such
an argument carries little moral weight because, while people may not be
responsible for possessing sinful desires, they are morally accountable
for what they do with such desires. Yet pro-homosex apologists often
argue for the acceptance of homosexual behavior from the involuntary
quality of homosexual desire, without recognizing the illogic of the
argument.
- Even in the absence of
scientifically measurable proof that incest harms all participants in
all circumstances, we proscribe the phenomenon as a whole, regardless of
whether the relationships are committed and caring. Why? Because we
recognize that there is something developmentally wrong about someone
wanting to have sex with someone who is too much of a same or like. The
combination of (i) a strong scriptural stance against incest, (ii) the
unnatural character of incest, and (iii) the disproportionately high
rate of problems associated with it are sufficient grounds for rejecting
every conceivable form. These are precisely the same grounds for
rejecting every conceivable form of same-sex intercourse.
- Who would argue that
to maintain an absolute and strong ecclesiastical proscription of all
incest is to forsake grace for law and to abandon love for intolerance?
Possibly this is what the Corinthians might have argued. But Paul made
quite clear that sex, unlike food, was not a matter of indifference (1
Cor 6:12-20). Grace and love in no way lead to the toleration of sinful
behavior. We shall say more about this below.
- Who would argue: Jesus
said nothing about incest so it must not have been important to him?
Obviously Jesus did not need to address the issue in his own cultural
context because (1) he agreed with Scripture’s strong proscription of it
and (2) encountered no “incest problem” in first-century Israel. Does
this silence mean that Jesus thought divorce and remarriage was a
greater wrong than incest? Surely not. The same points can be made with
respect to the absence of a specific Jesus saying about same-sex
intercourse.
What I am
emphasizing here is that the choice of analogy can make an enormous
difference in how one frames the issues. No analogy is perfect—that’s what
makes it a mere analogy—but as regards Scripture’s stance against same-sex
intercourse the analogy of incest is clearly superior to the usual
analogies of slavery, women’s roles, and divorce.
III. Jesus on the Double Love Commandment
I do not believe
that everything in Scripture carries equal weight. The central lens
through which the witness of Scripture must be read is the gospel message
regarding the grace and love of God, the redemption in Christ, and the
liberating power of the Spirit for a life of holiness. Too often in
contemporary church circles themes such as love, grace, redemption, and
liberation have been severed in an unbiblical way from concepts of
holiness, transformation into the image of Christ, and obedience to
Christian norms of behavior.
Take, for example,
Jesus’ view of love. The meaning of love in our day has erroneously merged
with the meanings of tolerance and even acceptance of various lifestyles
incongruent with Scripture. Advocates of this view then utilize Jesus’
appeal to the double love commandment (Mark 12:30-31)—love of God (Deut
6:5) and love of neighbor (Lev 19:18)—as a “screen” to eliminate from
other parts of Scripture judgmental commands that conflict with modern-day
notions of tolerance and acceptance. What’s the problem with this?
- First, advocates of
this “screen method” often start with a definition of love to which
Jesus did not subscribe. If love for Jesus meant a non-judgmental
acceptance of various lifestyles, especially sexual lifestyles, then
Jesus’ own carefully thought-through position on divorce and remarriage
and on adultery-of-the-heart must be viewed as eminently unloving (Matt
5:27-32). For Jesus did not broaden the array of sexual expression
allowable to humans but took an already narrow understanding of human
sexuality available to him in the Hebrew Scriptures and narrowed it even
further. He also declared that sexual misbehavior could get one thrown
into hell. Did Jesus not understand the very commandments that he lifted
up? Or are we the ones in error?
- Second, this “screen
method” usually collapses “the great and first commandment” (Matt
22:38), love of God, into the second, love of neighbor, and then defines
the latter broadly to embrace all sorts of behavior that Scripture
categorically rejects. But this is precisely what Jesus did not do.
Persons who violate the strongly attested commands of God in
Scripture—for example, regarding sexual behavior—cannot be said to love
the God whose will they reject, nor the persons made in God’s image whom
they involve in their corruption.
- Third, Jesus’ appeal
to Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”—incidentally a
command from the much-maligned Holiness Code (Lev 17-26)—reverberates
with the echo of Lev 19:17:
You shall not hate your brother in your
heart. You shall firmly reprove your fellow-countryman and so not
incur guilt because of him. You shall not take revenge and you shall
not hold a grudge against any of your people.
Love never takes
personal a wrong committed: it does not hate, take revenge, or hold a
grudge against another. Yet love often entails reproving another in
order to reclaim that person for the kingdom of God. If a child is about
to touch a hot stove it is not loving to withhold warnings. So love in
Jesus’ understanding cuts against contemporary notions of tolerance and
acceptance of behaviors that Scripture proscribes.
- Fourth, Jesus’
understanding of love combined a radical outreach to sinners with an
intensification of God’s ethical demand. This is amply illustrated in
Jesus’ dealings with tax collectors. Tax collectors had a justly
deserved reputation of not only collaborating with an oppressive foreign
power but also profiting by collecting more from the poor than the tax
owed (Luke 19:8). Two of the most secure elements of the scholarly
reconstruction of the historical Jesus are: (a) on the one hand Jesus
spoke out against the love of money and sided with the poor; and (b) on
the other hand Jesus fraternized with tax collectors who profited from
ripping off the poor. Here is a classic example of the intersection of
grace and holiness in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus extended God’s offer
of grace to a group of sinners while simultaneously warning of the
eternal consequences of continuing their sinful practices. Why is it so
hard for us to accept today that Jesus did the same with respect to the
sexually immoral? He reached out in love to sexual sinners while
intensifying God’s demand in the area of sexual ethics. The Pharisees
were unable to get their theological imaginations around this way of
thinking and acting. They assumed that Jesus’ fraternization with
sinners meant that Jesus was cutting ethical corners and they were
unhappy with the latter. We today are like the Pharisees, except that we
are happy with the idea of a diminished role for obedience. In both
instances there is a misunderstanding. Jesus calls his family, those who
actually do the will of God (Mark 3:34-35), to reach out to
sinners without softening by one iota the ethical imperatives of the
kingdom of God.
- Fifth, the stereotype
of a Jesus who put love over commandments and eschewed all judgment
simply does not square with the range of evidence from the preserved
sayings of Jesus. For example (note that “Q/Luke” indicates Lukan texts
with Matthean parallels): Salt that loses its taste will be thrown out
(Q/Luke 14:34-35; Mark 9:48-50); the weeds will be separated from the
wheat and thrown into the fire (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43); the bad fish in
the net will be thrown out (Matt 13:47-50); the goats will be separated
from the sheep (Matt 25:31-46). Those who do not do anything with the
investment God gives will have even the little they do have taken away
(Q/Luke 19:11-27). Many of the "children of the kingdom" will be thrust
into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth (Q/Luke 13:28-29). The men of Ninevah will arise at the judgment
and condemn this “evil generation” (Q/Luke 11:29-32). These judgment
sayings could easily be multiplied. As two liberal scholars, Gerd
Theissen and Annette Merz, argue in their seminal work The Historical
Jesus (Fortress): “There is no reason to deny that Jesus preached
judgment. The tradition of this is too broad.” Indeed, the major theme
of the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus has not come to relax the moral
demands of the law. Quite the contrary: Jesus has come to up the demand
for righteousness and to close the loopholes in the law (Matt 5:17-20).
The six antitheses regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths,
retaliation, and hating one’s enemy all take the form: you use to be
liable to divine judgment only for doing ‘x’; but I say to you that you
will be liable to judgment not only for ‘x’ but also for ‘y’ (Matt
5:21-48). The Sermon ends with a series of judgment sayings regarding
the narrow gate, throwing trees that bear bad fruit into the fire, the
surprising retort “I never knew you” to many who call Jesus “Lord,” and
the destruction that befalls those who build their house on sand by not
doing what Jesus says (Matt 7:13-27, with parallels in Luke).
To the church’s
shame we have taken the central theme of love and mercy in Jesus’ ministry
and message and contorted it in ways that demean calls for holiness and
radical obedience as necessarily legalistic. If it were so, then Jesus
himself would be the prime proponent of legalism—surely an absurdity.
Legalism comes when the church uses the commands of God as an excuse for
not making every effort to find the lost and to reclaim them for God’s
kingdom; or when believers forget the huge debt that God has forgiven
them, lose humility, and fail to extend forgiveness repeatedly to serial
backsliders who repent (see especially Luke 17:3-4; Matt 18:21-35).
However, the church is most emphatically not legalistic when it recognizes
that critical importance of leading a transformed life, including in the
sexual sphere, and warns of the great risk of God’s judgment upon those
who fail to exhibit such transformation. As Jesus put it: all who want to
follow me must take up their cross and deny themselves; otherwise, they
will lose their lives (Mark 8:34-37; Q/Luke 17:33; John 12:25).
IV. Paul on Law and Grace
A similar distortion
of the authoritative contents of Scripture comes from truncated notions of
the “law/gospel” grid in Paul’s letters. In its more extreme form this
grid is used to characterize as legalism any emphasis on the importance of
obeying God’s commands and on the risk to salvation of gross disobedience.
Let there be no
misunderstanding: Paul did declare the Mosaic Law to be abrogated in
Christ. No one can be justified on the basis of doing “the works of the
Law.” No one can merit the salvation accomplished through Christ’s
redemptive work on the cross. In Christ we are no longer “under the law.”
But consider the following:
- When Paul refers to
the Law being abrogated he has in view the Law of Moses as the ruling
power over Adam’s descendants. Christ’s death makes amends for human
iniquity and makes possible a new creation in the Spirit. What was
defective about the Law of Moses? According to Paul’s argument in Romans
and Galatians, (1) the Law of Moses with its distinctive Jewish
identity-markers excluded Gentiles. (2) It did not have its basis in the
climactic redemptive work of God in Christ but rather stressed human
doing and could thus lead to boasting in self. And (3) it was helpless
to empower obedience in the face of the strong sinful impulse operating
in Adamic flesh but powerful to curse those who violated its commands.
- Paul recognized
considerable continuity, especially in sexual ethics, between the will
of God reflected in the Law of Moses and the will of God reflected in
the leading of the Spirit. This is not surprising. The God who gave the
Law to Moses is the same God who gives the Spirit to those who believe
in Christ. Indeed, the Spirit is the Law now written on our hearts, no
longer mere “letter” or script (Jer 31:31-34; Rom 2:29; 7:6). While the
Law of Moses contained many elements applicable only to Israel’s
specific circumstances pre-Christ, its core values remained in place,
for the Law’s commandments are “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12).
Christ died for our sins and ended sin’s reign in human flesh “in order
that the just requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who are
walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom
8:3-4). For Christ “died for all, in order that those who live might no
longer live for themselves but for him who for them died and was raised.
. . . God made him who did not know sin to be sin for us, in order that
we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:15, 21). This
is the great purpose of Christ’s death, not that we should be free to do
what we want, but that we should be “free” to live a life of
righteousness, no longer enslaved to sin’s power (Rom 6:18-22).
- At the center of the
center-section of Romans (6:1-8:17) Paul asks and answers the question
of whether believers should continue to sin since they “are not under
the (Mosaic) Law but under grace” (6:14-15). The answer is an emphatic
“May it not happen!” For if being “under the law” meant being under
subjection to sinful impulses operating in the human frame, then being
“under grace” must mean liberation from a sin-controlled life and for
service to God through the power of the Spirit (6:16-23; 7:5-6). This
precise point is made by Martin Luther in his commentary on Rom 6:14.
·
That is why Paul can assert in 6:15-23 that the
indispensable middle term between freedom from the law through Christ's
death and eternal life is the new obedient or righteous conduct of the
believer. “Having fruit for holiness” is a necessary intermediate step in
a redemptive process that leads to eternal life (6:19-23). Otherwise, the
grace of God is short-circuited in the life of the Christian. As Martin
Luther himself put it (commenting on Rom 6:19): “The one who serves
uncleanness, that is, sexual uncleanness, is already becoming more and
more unrighteous, for sin now rules over him, and he has lost faith and
has become an unbeliever.” Or as John Calvin stated (commenting on Rom
8:9): "Those in whom the Spirit does not reign do not belong to Christ;
therefore those who serve the flesh are not Christians, for those who
separate Christ from His Spirit make Him like a dead image or a corpse. .
. . free remission of sins cannot be separated from the Spirit of
regeneration. This would be, as it were, to rend Christ asunder." To
return to the sexual “uncleanness” mentioned in 1:24, a context that
features prominently same-sex intercourse (1:26-27), is to find one’s
primary identity in the flesh rather than in the Spirit. That in turn
places one back under the Law of Moses, the binding legal authority with
jurisdiction over the old fleshly creation. “If you are led
by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law” (Gal 5:18). Conversely, if
you are not led by the Spirit, then you are—precisely as fleshly
beings—subject to the law’s jurisdiction and so condemnation.
·
Yes, there is no condemnation (8:1), but the “no
condemnation” is for those who are “in Christ Jesus,” who by definition
are those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the
Spirit” (8:4). Nobody merits eternal life. But this free gift (6:23) is
only available to those joined to Jesus who is life itself. And there is
no being joined to Jesus without being regulated by the Spirit of Christ.
There is no sin transfer to Christ apart from self-transfer to Christ. No
living in Christ without dying to sin and crucifying the old human with
its sinful desires (6:1-14; Gal 5:24). No “new creation” without the old
passing away (2 Cor 5:17). No citizenship in heaven for those not being
conformed to Christ’s death by living out of heaven’s power, the Spirit
(Phil 3:10-11, 20). The trip to heaven is free, all expenses paid by
Christ’s death, but you have to get on and remain on the plane that God
provides to get us there (the Spirit). So long as we live as fleshly
beings our citizenship is not in heaven but on earth; we are still very
much on the tar mat. Our confession to being citizens of heaven, under the
lordship of Christ, is empty.
·
Accordingly, Paul’s ultimate answer to the question “Should
we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?” (6:15) is given
in 8:12-14: “So then, brethren, we
are debtors not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh, for if you
live according to the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit
you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. For as many as are
being led by the Spirit, these are
the sons (children) of God.”
- What is “faith”
according to Paul? Is it some mere intellectual assent to the truth? A
“take-the-money-and-run” approach to God's gracious offer of salvation
through Christ? No, it is rather the kind of trust in God and in God’s
work in Christ that issues in a "yes" to God and "no" to self, a dying
to self and a living for God. So Paul could say in Gal 2:19-20: “I
through the law died to the law in order that I might live for God. I
have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live but Christ lives
in me and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the
Son of God who loved me and gave himself over for me.” If we do
otherwise, if we live for self and die to God by pursuing desires
contrary to God’s will, can we really say that we are trusting Jesus who
loved us enough to die for us?
- Suppose a married man
wants to have sex with a drop-dead gorgeous woman who happens not to be
his wife. What does faith mean in this context? Does it mean believing
Jesus died for me, knowing that I'm going to heaven, and then having sex
with the other woman? May it not be so! Faith here means: because I am
so grateful for salvation through Christ and am convinced that what God
has in store for me—forming Christ in me—is better than the
gratification of this sinful impulse, I will not yield to that sinful
impulse. In other words, one can't live according to the flesh and then
say that one is living by the conviction of being justified by faith. If
one is conforming to the sinful impulse in the flesh then one is not
walking in faith. This is God's doing but we must comply; otherwise it
becomes our doing (living out of our flesh) and the outcome of that is
death rather than life.
- It is hardly
surprising, then, that Paul can refer to “the law (i.e., regulating
force) of the Spirit” freeing us “from the law of sin and death (i.e.,
the regulating force of the sinful impulse in human flesh). The
abrogation of the Law of Moses does not leave believers “lawless.” To
the contrary: we are subject to the regulating power of the Spirit. The
difference between this “law” and the Law of Moses is threefold,
answering to the threefold defect in the Mosaic law cited above: (1)This
“law” does not set up barriers to Gentiles. (2) This “law” is made
possible by the amends-making death of Christ, allowing us to be
purified to receive God’s Spirit. And (3) this “law” not only commands
us to live righteously but empowers such obedience. Again, Paul could
say to the Corinthian Christians: “To those without the law I became as
one without the law—though I am not without a law toward God but in
Christ's law” (1 Cor 9:21). “Bear one another's burdens,” Paul exhorts
the Galatian Christians, “and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).
- Paul does not expect
perfection, but neither does he expect the Christian life to be static.
A sanctified life does not happen all at once. Even so, in the main, one
will serve Christ as Lord by the Spirit’s power rather than sin as lord
by human power. As he says in his letter to the Philippians, “with fear
and trembling work at your own salvation; for God is the one who is at
work in you, [effecting] both the willing and the working for his good
pleasure” (2:12-13). Note the wonderful balance here: we are to work at
our own salvation but such working is nothing else than letting God work
in us. Not to progress in holiness is to resist actively the work of God
in one’s life. And as Paul says later in the same letter: “not that I
have already been made perfect (or: reached the goal), but I press on to
make it my own. . . . forgetting what lies behind and straining to what
lies ahead” (3:12-14). When we fail, we get up, push on, and forget
about the failures of the past. We renew our resolve to crucify the
sin-controlled life, not by our own efforts but by the power of God, and
thereby to reach the goal of eternal life.
- It is entirely
consistent with this view of things that Paul regards serial unrepentant
participation in porneia (the Greek word for “sexual immorality,”
including bestiality, same-sex intercourse, incest, adultery, and
solicitation of prostitutes) as incompatible with the grace of God and
life in the Spirit. Thus he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in
the earliest extant NT document:
For you know what
commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of
God: your holiness, that you abstain from
porneia
. . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because
the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us
not to (sexual) uncleanness but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects
[these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit
to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)
And to the
Galatian Christians:
The works of the flesh are obvious, which
are: porneia, (sexual) uncleanness, licentiousness . . . , which I
am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice
such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . .
Stop deceiving
yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows this one will
also reap. For the one who casts seed into one's flesh will reap a harvest
of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into
the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us
not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap,
if
we do not relax our
efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)
And again to the Corinthians, in
the context of how to deal with a practicing, self-affirming Christian
participant in an incestuous adult union:
Or do you not
realize that unrighteous people will not inherit God's kingdom? Stop
deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral (the
pornoi),
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate males who play the sexual
role of females, nor men who lie with males . . . will inherit the kingdom
of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep
concern that
I may have to
mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not
repent of the (sexual) uncleanness,
porneia,
and licentiousness that they practiced. (12:21)
The message of
Ephesians is identical:
“Porneia
and (sexual) uncleanness of any kind . . . must not even be mentioned
among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Be sure of this, that
no sexually immoral person (pornos)
or (sexually) unclean person . . . has any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you . . . , for because of these
things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. (5:3-5;
similarly, Col 3:5-6)
What could be
clearer? Sex matters. Persistent unrepentant sexual behavior can put a
believer at risk of not inheriting the coming kingdom of God. That
included for Paul same-sex intercourse, which he defined as sexual
uncleanness in Rom 1:24-27 (cf. 6:19) and porneia in 1 Cor 6:9.
What shall we say? That Paul did not have a good grasp of the distinction
between law and grace? Preposterous. Paul’s views coincide with Jesus’
views; if anything, Paul is more law-free than Jesus, not less (Paul spoke
of the abrogation of the Mosaic law; Jesus did not.) It is we who have
truncated the gospel of grace by voiding its irrevocable connection to a
transformed life in the Spirit.
If anyone tells you
that keeping the commands of God is not an essential part of the Christian
life, don’t believe it for a moment. Believe Paul instead who said that
what matters is “keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). If anyone
tells you that our adherence to God’s commands does not please or glorify
God, prefer Paul’s words instead. For it is Paul who urges believers to
“present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God” (Rom
12:1). It is Paul who exhorts believers to “glorify God in your body” by
fleeing porneia (1 Cor 6:18, 20). Does this undermine the message
of grace and redemption in Christ? Far from it. It is that very redemption
or “buying back” that compels Paul to ask rhetorically: “Or don’t you know
that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit that is in you . . . and
[that] you do not belong to yourself? For you were bought with a price”
(6:19). What price? The price of the precious blood of Christ. Precisely
because we no longer belong to ourselves but to the God who bought us
back, our whole lives now revolve around doing God’s will rather than our
own.