“If you behave and do your work, I won’t write anything on the board. But if you’re naughty, I’ll have to write your name under the sad face, and your teacher will see that you were misbehaving when she comes back tomorrow,” the substitute teacher explained. “If you’re really good, you’ll get your name on the smiley face side of the board. Then, your teacher will know who behaved exceptionally well for the sub.” Oooh, did we all want our names on the right side of the board.

It was the most well behaved class in elementary school history. We all worked quietly when it was time to work quietly, we raised our hands and waited to speak until the teacher called on us, we lined up for recess in an orderly fashion. The substitute praised our behavior and added name after name underneath the wide grin. Every name, in fact. Well, all but one. Mine.

My name was missing from the board. The clock ticked the afternoon away. I sat up straighter. What if our teacher comes back tomorrow and sees every name on the board – except mine? My little heart raced. Don’t panic. Just be good. But then the bell rang. The day was over. And I hadn’t been good enough.

I exhaled. I hadn’t realized I had been holding my breath, trying to be quieter, smaller. I sat in my desk, crestfallen, as the other students gathered their things. My friend walked to the front of the room. “Excuse me, Miss,” she said, “you forgot someone – ” she turned and pointed to me. “Wasn’t Amanda good too?”

“Of course!” the teacher replied warmly. “I’m sorry I missed her!” she said as she wrote my name alongside my classmates’ names. I breathed a sigh of relief.

Subscribe now

Good Girl

You see, for me, being good wasn’t something I did sometimes. It was my identity. I was a Good Girl. All the time. I did my best to follow all the rules and to be as perfect, as exceptionally good, as possible. Not having my name on the board would have felt like a personal failure.

This drive to be Good followed me through my teens and well into adulthood. I read the Bible, went to church, served as a missionary. I regularly prayed, evangelized, and volunteered at church. I was careful to always submit to the authorities God had placed over me in the church and at home. I worked hard to do what I thought I was supposed to do.

To be good meant following the Bible, which was the ultimate authority. I studied it diligently, being careful to pay attention to context and genre, and seeking the original message of the text before drawing out application. The more I studied, the more I found that something seemed off.

The more I read the Bible and listened to the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, the more I discovered that God was… well, a little queer. “Queer” as in “strange, odd, peculiar.” From a young age, I could see that God didn’t seem to be focused on defining and enforcing a strict set of rules. This was strange because the Christianity I knew had a lot of rules.

Girls had to be quiet and sit still. When we grew up, we had to be careful not to teach anything to a man. We had to obsess over our clothing to make sure it was utterly modest but also feminine. We had to be pretty, but not too pretty, otherwise we might accidentally make a man feel aroused. We strictly limited music and media and had to avoid certain hobbies. We had to keep ourselves separate from certain other people unless we were actively trying to evangelize them (which included getting them to change to be more like us).

I remember the first time I read the Gospels on my own. I was in fourth grade, and I have a clear memory of thinking: It sure seems like we act more like the self-righteous religious leaders than like Jesus. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day wanted everyone to follow a strict set of rules. But Jesus was always breaking the rules and getting in trouble. He didn’t seem so concerned with being labeled “good” by the spiritual authorities in his life. Anxiety welled up in my soul:

What if we’re doing this wrong?

I shoved that feeling down.

I’m a Good Girl. I follow the rules.

Subscribe now

Queer God

Sometimes, it seems like the Bible doesn’t follow its own rules.

In Deuteronomy, the people of God were instructed not to intermarry with foreigners (Deut 7:3). However, throughout the Bible, we see foreigners being brought into the family of God. For example, in Matthew 1, there’s a genealogy that includes four unexpected foreigners: Rahab, Tamar, Uriah, and Ruth.

Think about Rahab. She was literally a prostitute. But she’s a positive character. And the Israelites had been told to “destroy” her people “totally” and not to marry them (Deut 7:1-4), but Rahab helped the spies (Josh 2), so she and her family were spared (Josh 6). Not only were they spared – Rahab married into the family and got included in a place of honor in the Messianic line in Matthew 1. So… what’s God doing? It kinda seems like God isn’t following his own rules. Why would this person be honored? It’s a little strange; it’s a little queer.

Consider the other folks in Matthew’s genealogy. Included in a place of honor is Tamar, a foreign woman who tricked her father-in-law, Judah, into sleeping with her (Gen 38). Judah had even called her “more righteous than I” (Gen 38:26)! What’s up with that?

Uriah, a foreigner who married an Israelite woman, Bathsheba, is also included in the genealogy. Both he and his wife were careful to follow the Torah, but it didn’t protect them from David’s scheming. They were remembered and David was undermined in the opening of the Gospel. Uriah, the foreigner, the outsider, was elevated alongside David.[1]

Consider Ruth, another foreign woman. The Israelites weren’t supposed to marry foreigners! But Ruth is universally considered a positive character. Was Boaz wrong for marrying a foreign woman? Were the two of them wrong for not perfectly following the laws of Levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10)? Boaz wasn’t her brother in law. Yet, through Boaz and Ruth, salvation was brought to Naomi and her family, and Ruth is included in the Messianic line.

The Bible isn’t meant to be read as a rule book where you have to follow the letter of the law. It’s meant to illuminate the heart of a God who cares about weird, queer, things and people. The condition of the heart is what matters. God is shown to be someone who “shows no partiality and accepts no bribes” and who “defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you” (Deut 10:17-18). God is someone who remembers the downtrodden. Throughout the Bible, it is the widows, orphans, and foreigners – outsiders – who are considered the most vulnerable, and who are nearest to the heart of God.

Throughout the Bible, God uses unexpected people. The first are last and the last are first. The humble are elevated above the mighty. Outsiders are brought in. And the kingdom of God is upside-down.

Upside-down

Is there anything more queer than an “upside-down kingdom”? Not only queer as in “strange, odd, peculiar,” it’s Queer as in “anti-normative,” setting itself “at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.”[2] The first-century Israelites expected a Messiah king who would deliver them from Rome. They expected someone who would bring them power. Instead, they got Jesus, “gentle/lowly and riding on a donkey” (Matt 21:5; Zech 9:9). Even though Jesus was “in very nature God,” he “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Phil 2:6). Instead, he humbled himself by becoming human, and then humbled himself further by dying on a cross (Phil 2:7-8).

We’ve seen throughout history that most gods, kings, and those in positions of power use that power for their own advantage. The fact that God declined to abuse his power and, instead, drew near to humanity, that God literally changed his form and became human, is inherently queer. It’s just weird. It goes against that which is considered normal. Power usually corrupts. But God didn’t use his power for exploitation and abuse. He used it to draw near.

He used it to draw near to the needy and downtrodden. Early in Jesus’ ministry, he was tempted with “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” (Matt 4:8; c.f. Luke 4:5-8), but he turned them down. Jesus launched his ministry by declaring that he had come “to proclaim good news to the poor…. To proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-21). Throughout his ministry, Jesus hung out with the “wrong” people. The outcasts, the sinners, the unclean. He was always breaking down the boundaries the people of God had set up.[3]

It’s normal to want to set up boundaries. To want to mark what’s right and what’s wrong, to identify who’s in and who’s out. But the family of God is radically inclusive. It sets itself against what is normal and imagines a new way forward.

Subscribe now

Old Testament

God has always been Queer. The story of the Bible shows, time and again, a God who has set himself against the norms of the surrounding cultures. According to the creation stories of Israel’s neighbors in the Ancient Near East, humans were created to be slaves to the gods, [4] whereas the God of the Bible created humans to be in relationship with him. Ancient law codes prioritized justice for “elite males,” whereas the Law in the Bible included protection for women, slaves, foreigners, and other marginalized groups. [5] The very first name given to God is by Hagar, a rejected and desperate foreign slave woman, who called him “the God who sees me” (Genesis 16:13). Think of it – a woman, far from home, being mistreated by the people of God, declared: “He sees me.”

Historical accounts of foreign kings in the Ancient Near East served to prop up and legitimize their power, whereas parts of the Bible, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings in particular, serve as indictments of Israelite leadership.[6] For example, the biblical account of the house of Omri, and particularly of Ahab, is extremely negative: “Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him…. [he] did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him” (1 Kings 16:30, 33). According to extrabiblical sources, however, Ahab was a super powerful and important king who saved the whole region.[7]

It was very rare for the accomplishments of foreign rulers to be included in histories compiled in the Ancient Near East. Ahab’s influence and support of the surrounding nations must have been remarkable for foreign powers to have documented his accomplishments. In a “normal” world, Ahab’s accomplishments would have been recorded by his own people. Instead, what remains in the biblical literature is accountability for corrupt leaders, preservation of the memory of the Lord’s mercy on a widow at Zarephath, and the destruction of false prophets (1 Kings 17-18). Biblical narratives were revelations from the Lord, documented in ancient Israel to condemn corrupt rulers and to demonstrate his heart – in this instance, his heart for the widow and foreigner.[8]

New Testament

It was this foreign widow, in fact, who sparked Jesus’ first controversy with the religious leaders. As mentioned earlier in this essay, Jesus launched his ministry in Luke 4 by announcing that he had come to “proclaim good news to the poor,” “set the oppressed free,” etc. That was fine to say. But when Jesus indicated who he meant by the “poor” and “oppressed” by pointing out that Elijah was sent not to Israel, but to a foreign widow in Zarephath, and that Elisha had healed Naaman, a foreigner, rather than Israelites, “all the people in the synagogue were furious…. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff” (Luke 4:25-28). This is the framing for Jesus’ ministry. Jesus demonstrated God’s heart for the least, the last, the lost, and the least-liked.[9] His community, including the religious elite, did not like that Jesus brought in outsiders.

The early church struggled with figuring out what it meant that foreigners, that those who had previously been excluded, had been brought in to the family of God. Throughout the New Testament, we see them wrestling with the importance of sacred time, sacred space, sacred food, and circumcision, the core markers that had identified who belonged in the family of God.[10] Time and again, these external identity markers that had been so important in the past were reimagined.

In Acts, the apostles and elders met at the council of Jerusalem to discuss these matters. Peter said (Acts 15:8-11):

God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted [the Gentiles] by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Barnabas and Paul told the council “about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12). James said: “we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). They determined that the new converts would not be required to be circumcised. They did, however, indicate that new converts should not eat food that had been sacrificed to idols.

Then, in both Romans and 1 Corinthians, exceptions were made for people to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The point of the council wasn’t to make a new, immovable law. They were doing their best to try to figure out how to follow the Holy Spirit in their current time and place. The measure of a person’s place in God’s family is the presence of the Holy Spirit. It’s the heart that matters, not external identity markers.

In the New Testament, the people of God were trying to figure out how to faithfully follow God. They wrestled with how to implement Old Testament instruction in their own cultural context. They weren’t crafting a woodenly literal set of rules to be obeyed for all time.

Subscribe now

How to Worship

In the prophets, in Amos 5, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 6, and Hosea 6, the people of God were criticized for going through the motions of worship without actually doing the work of God. They were going through the motions of religion, but neglecting to care for the poor and economically disadvantaged, and were committing violence.[11] In the Gospels, Jesus sharply criticized the corrupt temple system of his day.[12] Yes, how we worship matters.

Throughout history, there have always been people who try really hard to do what’s right and find the exact right verses that tell them exactly what they’re supposed to do, and then they follow those with strict rigidity. On the other hand, there have always been people who abuse the religious system and the Bible itself to seek their own power and wealth and prestige over the needs of others.

It’s important to remember that following God is not about the pursuit of power. It’s about drawing near to the economically disadvantaged, to outsiders, to those who have been shunned by the religious elite. God “chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are” (1 Cor 1:28). If that’s not queer, I don’t know what is. The queer things of God seem foolish, but “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength” (1 Cor 1:25).

Conclusion

Even within the Bible itself, the people of God struggled with knowing what they were supposed to do in any given situation. The God of the Bible is a God who draws near. He’s a God who interacts with creation and speaks to us through his Holy Spirit. He’s a God who has communicated meaningfully with people of disparate languages and cultures across time and history. There isn’t one right way to do things. Being a Christian isn’t about following a strict set of rules set out by religious authorities. We don’t have to agonize over whether or not our sleeves are long enough, or if we’re allowed to listen to secular music on the radio. We don’t have to try to fit into carefully curated gender roles. We can just be ourselves. God loves us as we are.

I didn’t need to be afraid of that substitute teacher, or of my regular teacher. They were both kind ladies. We don’t need to be afraid of God either. He doesn’t have a cosmic white board with a big smiley face on one side and a big frowny face on the other. He’s not watching our every move, just waiting to mark down if someone had trouble sitting still or got excited and blurted out an answer. The God who draws near to humanity, the God who saw Hagar, draws near to you. He sees you. Our Queer God is with the weirdos and the outcasts, and he doesn’t demand conformity to a set of norms. For this “Good Girl,” that’s a relief.

[1] Read more about this in my academically published article, “Vindicating Bathsheba,” here on Substack or directly in the Priscilla Papers.

[2] Quote from David Halperin in Matthew Vines’ New York Times article, “I’m Gay, Not Queer. It Matters,” June 30, 2026.

[3] For more, read my Boundary Breaker series, based on Joseph Hellerman’s book Jesus and the People of God: Reconfiguring Ethnic Identity.

[4] Carmen Joy Imes, Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 33-34. We also covered this in my World of Old Testament and Pentateuch classes at Talbot School of Theology.

[5] I wrote an essay on this in my Pentateuch class at Talbot School of Theology.

[6] This was discussed in my Advanced Hermeneutics class at Talbot School of Theology.

[7] Kyle R. Greenwood, David B. Schreiner, Ahab’s House of Horrors: A Historiographic Study of the Military Campaigns of the House of Omri (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2023).

[8] I wrote a paper on this for World of the Old Testament class at Talbot School of Theology.

[9] This is the framing of the Gospels, and particularly the Gospel of Luke, that I learned in my undergrad Bible classes at Biola University.

[10] Hellerman, Joseph, Jesus and the People of God: Reconfiguring Ethnic Identity.

[11] Amos 5:11-12, 21-24; Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 6:6-7, 10, 13-14, 20; Hosea 6:6

[12] Read more in Boundary Breaker: Sacred Space Part 1, and Boundary Breaker: Sacred Space Part 2, coming soon.

It’s funny that we, as a society, often use Noah’s Ark to decorate nurseries and children’s spaces. I mean, the animals are cute and all, but isn’t it ultimately a story about God’s wrath? Welcome to the world, kid, if you mess up, God might wipe you out. Not with a flood, of course. God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he wouldn’t destroy the world with water again. But it doesn’t say that he won’t destroy the world with fire. So stay in line or fire and brimstone might rain down on you and everyone you love.

At least, that’s what I internalized growing up. Cutesy animals paired with an ever-present threat of destruction. We were supposed to be all happy and satisfied with a surface level half promise, rejoicing that we would avoid one (and only one) type of calamity. Happy worshiping a God who hated sin and punished wickedness. We would say that “God is love and God is just,” while internally equating justice with wrath and punishment. Belief that God’s wrath could strike at any moment would stoke visceral fear and near-constant existential terror in those of us who hungered and thirsted for righteousness.

Subscribe now

Growing up as an evangelical good girl meant that I obsessed over making sure my clothes were perfectly modest, that I didn’t consume any questionable media, that I didn’t accidentally “exercise authority” over a man. It meant that I followed any and every rule handed down to me by the spiritual authorities in my life. Because fear is a powerful motivator. And when you grow up in the shadow of a sadistic God who randomly pours out wrath on unsuspecting victims, you’re easy to manipulate and control.

This picture of a sadistic God is a caricature used by those who wish to cling to power (or those who have been manipulated and deceived by bad actors). Careful examination of Scripture reveals the true nature of the Lord’s justice – that He holds the wicked accountable while also revealing His care for humanity. The rainbow is not a half promise. It’s a whole promise, and it’s time we reclaimed it from the people using it to keep us in line.

The Problem

The story of Noah is found in Genesis 6-9. There was a problem. The “wickedness of the human race” had become so great that “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart” were “only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5). The earth had become “corrupt” and was “full of violence” (Gen 6:11). Notice how the problems weren’t trivial. They were rooted in violence.

Furthermore, Genesis 6 opens with a difficult-to-interpret section talking about the “sons of God” taking “the daughters of humans” and having children by them (Gen 6:2, 4). We aren’t totally sure what is meant by “sons of God” or “Nephilim” in Genesis 6:1, 4. But what we do see here is a familiar construction – someone “saw” that someone or something else was “good, beautiful, the best,” (tov) and “took” them.

In the Garden of Eden, the woman “saw” that the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was “good, beautiful, the best,” (tov), and “took” it and gave some to the man, “who was with her” (Gen 3:6). This is the core root of sin – people judging for themselves that they know for sure what is good and what is evil and selfishly taking what they think is best.

Yes, there is some kind of sexual sin going on in the story of Noah. But the problem was powerful people – people who had been classified as “sons of God” and “heroes of old, men of renown” – seeing the daughters of human beings, judging them as “beautiful, good” (tov), and “taking” them (Gen 6:1-4).[1] There is a violence and abuse of power implied in these verses.

Subscribe now

The Solution?

Since “the Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become,” he “regretted that he had made human beings” (Gen 6:5). So, he decided to “wipe from the face of the earth the human race” (Gen 6:7). But, it’s interesting and somewhat ironic that he didn’t actually go through with completely destroying the human race. He saved Noah and his family. Throughout the Bible, there are stories where it says that everyone is going to be destroyed, but then there are exceptions. There’s tension and wrestling and seeming contradiction in the biblical stories.

Humanity has wrestled throughout history with the question “why do bad things happen?” There was some kind of major flood in the ancient world. The extent of the flood is debated, but the fact that other societies in the Ancient Near East have similar flood stories from the same period of time points to there having been some literal, major flood, at least in that area. And it’s interesting to compare the biblical account of the flood with other contemporaneous accounts. We can get a peek into how the ancient Israelites dealt with the trauma of a major weather event in comparison to their neighbors.

One of these secular accounts is found in the Gilgamesh Epic. There are many similarities between the Biblical story and the Gilgamesh Epic, but the first notable difference is that the reason for the flood in the Bible was egregious, violent sin, whereas in the secular account, the reason for the flood was that the “noise of man disturbed the gods’ rest.”[2] What a difference! The hero in the Genesis account “walked faithfully with God” and was saved intentionally due to his righteousness (Gen 6:9), whereas the hero in the Gilgamesh Epic was warned secretly by one of the gods. After the flood, the sacrifice in Genesis was made as an act of worship, whereas the sacrifice in the secular account was made to appease the gods.

In the Ancient Near East, the creation accounts by other gods were marked by violence and humans created as an afterthought as their slaves,[3] whereas the Lord created humanity with intentionality and in His image (Gen 1:27). His creative acts were not borne out of violence and wrath; rather, they were meant to cultivate meaningful relationships between humans and the divine. We see these values reflected in the flood accounts. Other gods were chaotic and violent and random, and humans existed as afterthoughts who might spur the gods on to extreme anger and violence by something as trivial as making too much noise. This is not the picture we get of God in the Bible.

In the story of Noah, the God of the Bible spares the righteous. And being unrighteous is defined as being utterly corrupt and wicked, living lives marked by violence and abuses of power. And the central point of the story of Noah is in Genesis 8:1 – “God remembered Noah.” The central message of this story is God remembering and coming through for humanity. This is in wild contrast to the character of the other gods of the Ancient Near East.

Subscribe now

The Aftermath

After the waters receded, “Noah built an altar to the Lord” and “sacrificed burnt offerings on it” (Gen 8:20). The Lord said: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans… And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done” (Gen 8:21). He continues (Gen 8:22):

“As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

Notice how there’s no threat that goes along with this. Just a promise. There’s no mention of fire. In our eagerness to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, we sometimes jump ahead. We pull things out of context and project them onto other passages of Scripture. We look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and read that “the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen 19:24)[4] and freak out and use it to override the promise made at the end of Genesis 8.

We’ve got to let Scripture say what its saying before we can use it to interpret other passages. And we need to actually take the time to study a passage in context before we apply it to another one. There isn’t space in this essay to do a deep dive on Sodom and Gomorrah, but note that the threat in that story was men who wanted to gang r*pe men who traveled to the city (Gen 19:4-5). They wanted to assert their dominance over newcomers. As with the story of Noah, the problem was violence and abuse of power. It wasn’t something trivial.

Going back to Noah – God blessed him and made a covenant with him and his descendants and with “every living creature on earth” that “never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:1, 8-11). Again, the promise was made that God would not destroy the earth.

It’s interesting and important that the issue of violence resurfaces in Genesis 9:4-6. The Lord will “demand an accounting for the life of another human being” (Gen 9:5). Genesis 9:6 calls out that shedding human blood is wrong because “in the image of God” has God made humankind. Again, the issue is violence and bloodshed. And there should be some kind of accountability for people who do violence to others.

There’s also a return in chapter 9 to ambiguous sex acts. In Genesis 9:18-27, there’s a story about Noah getting drunk and passing out and one of his sons doing something bad. We don’t know what it was or even if it was sexual in nature. But what we do know is that Noah was incapacitated. Taking advantage of someone when they’re drunk is wrong. Again, there’s an abuse of power in the sexual acts that are being condemned.

Subscribe now

The Promise

The promise that God would not destroy all life is reiterated several times in Genesis 8-9. The Lord gave the rainbow as a sign of that promise:

“This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

The rainbow is a sign that God will not pour out his wrath. It’s supposed to be good news. Think of the people who survived the flood. How scary must it have been when it started to rain again? They must have had so much anxiety about whether or not it would stop raining. But when a rainbow appears, it means that the rain is slowing down and the sun is coming out. And that means they’re going to live another day. The rainbow is supposed to be a symbol that frees people from anxiety. It’s supposed to bring hope.

Application

So, this June, whenever you see a rainbow, remember that it’s not a sign of condemnation. It’s a sign of hope. A reminder that God made an everlasting covenant with all living creatures on the earth. Should people who are violent and commit abuses of power be held accountable? Of course. Are there people in any demographic who do wrong? Of course. But the rainbow flag is not a celebration of wickedness and debauchery, as some seem to think. It’s a symbol of hope and community and the beautiful diversity found in humanity. It’s a bold claim that no matter what I wear or who I love, I am not condemned, and I don’t need to hide.

Reclaim the rainbow from the people who would make it about God’s wrath. It’s a sign of God’s promise that he would not condemn the world. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

[1] The Hebrew word laqah, “take” is translated as “married” in the NIV translation of Genesis 6:2.

[2] Class notes from Pentateuch and World of the Old Testament classes at Biola University Talbot School of Theology.

[3] Carmen Joy Imes, Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 33-34.

[4] This is from the NASB; all other translations in this essay are from NIV.

Breakout description:

Reclaiming Romans by Reading it Backwards

Utilizing Scot McKnight’s book Reading Romans Backwards, we will study the epistle of Romans as a whole, in its literary and cultural context. Along the way, we will discover that, rather than being a difficult text to deal with and overcome, the message of Romans delivers enthusiastically good news for all believers, including those of us in the queer community. When studied in context, rather than serving as a condemnation of LGBTQIA+ folks and their allies, Romans 1 emerges as a literary device that serves the greater purpose of the letter – to call believers to peace and love.

Transcript:

00:00:01

OK, so today we are reclaiming Romans by reading it backwards. I know that Romans has been considered one of the most difficult clobber passages to get around, and even just the word “Romans” can be triggering for people. Be mindful of your mental health today. I’m not going to read a lot of Romans 1 because I figure we’ve all heard it. We don’t need to hear it again. We’re going to focus on the end and move back towards the beginning.

00:00:33

Because – I am a graduate of Biola University Talbot School of Theology, and when I was studying at that conservative, evangelical seminary, I found that if I actually read the whole book of Romans in context according to the methods that I was being taught at Talbot as part of my program majoring in Bible Exposition, specifically like studying the methodology of how we study the Bible biblically, I realized that we shouldn’t be excluding any siblings of faith from the family of God. And so today we’re going to walk through just sort of what I learned when I was studying the book of Romans. And so we’re going to walk through what I learned when I was studying at Talbot. And just because I happen to be an expert on studying the Bible this way doesn’t mean that this is the one right way to read the Bible. But I hope that we can feel vindicated today, especially those of us who come from this background to see that we shouldn’t have been condemned even in the church communities where we started.

00:01:38

So the first step in reading the Bible biblically is to analyze yourself. You have to recognize what you’re bringing to the text because if you don’t ask: “what are my assumptions about this text?” Then what you assume you’ll find is what you’ll find. So around your tables or just sort of with some people you’re kind of near, ask “what are my assumptions about this text? What are my presuppositions? What questions do I hope it’ll answer? What are my biases?” Really briefly talk amongst yourselves about “what are some of the assumptions we bring to the book of Romans?”

00:02:18

Let’s answer the question as a group. What are some assumptions that we bring to the book of Romans? What do you assume you’ll find in the book of Romans?

Audience: Intelligible

Amanda: Yep. Yep, Yep. So he said that his assumption is that Romans says that being gay is bad. Is that a pretty common assumption that most of us bring to the text? Yeah, yeah.

Audience: The Romans road. Your way to salvation was the fundamental tradition.

Amanda: Yeah. The Romans road, the fundamental way to salvation. We just have these couple of verses we quote. Yeah.

00:03:05

Audience: Yeah, I was going to say the same thing there, but also add like, oh, prescriptions for following the government, Romans 13.

Amanda: Prescriptions for following the government like in Romans 13. Yeah, yeah. And those are some of the main sort of assumptions that people bring to the book of Romans and in both affirming and non-affirming spaces, there’s a pretty widespread assumption that Romans 1 in particular condemns the LGBTQIA+ community. And so if you come to Romans assuming that it’s going to condemn the queer community, then that’s what you’ll find. If you don’t take time to recognize “what are the assumptions I bring to the text?” then those assumptions will guide your reading of the text. And so I would hope that everyone in this room would be OK with setting aside the assumption that Romans 1 condemns queer folks. Does that sound good? Can I get an Amen?

Audience: Amen.

Amanda: OK, good.

00:04:04

The next step in Biblical interpretation is to analyze the text, and in this framework, the goal is to try to figure out what the text originally meant. What did the original author intend to say to the original recipients? And to do this, we need to read it in context. We need to read it in its literary context. We need to read it in its historical context. We need to read it and its cultural context. And once we study the whatever passage it is in context and kind of try to pull out what it originally was saying, then we can draw out timeless truths for today. We’re not supposed to just sort of cherry pick verses and read them in English and say “oh, this applies directly to my situation in these exact words.” You’re supposed to read it as a whole and then draw out application. And this is something that people can be kind of lazy on and that’s not good.

00:05:05

So most of what we’ll do today is doing some of this analysis. And again, this isn’t the only way to read the Bible, but it happens to be the way I was trained. So the third step in reading biblically is to read in community, and that’s asking: “what interpretive lenses are relevant to this text?” And in my framework that I come from, that means following historical doctrines of the faith, and specifically historical doctrines of the faith from Protestant Christianity. Evangelicals are Protestants.

00:05:41

Now, I came to the conclusion on my own that same sex marriage is allowable within the framework of Protestant historical doctrines of the faith. But there’s someone who says it a lot better than I do, and her name is Karen Keen, in Scripture, Ethics and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. What she’s doing when she says the “possibility” is that she’s demonstrating that this is allowable. And so, um, she’s a very respected scholar who has argued very well in her book Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships that same-sex marriage is allowable within the framework of historical doctrines of the faith.

00:06:26

The steps where we are recognizing our assumptions and then reading in community, it’s a little bit like a visit to the optometrist office. And, you know, you have to go – you can’t just put on glasses and assume you’ll be able to see. You have to go to the optometrist to see where you’re starting from, right? You have to get your prescription. And so if you skip that first step and then just start putting on glasses, then the text will look all wonky. And the lenses that people use, you could use historical doctrines of the faith. Or another really important thing is when we recognize our biases and want to try to set them aside to try to figure out the meaning of the text, we need to recognize where we have our own cultural deficiencies. So, for example, since I’m American, I tend to be more individualistic. And so when I get to this stage of reading in community, I can listen to my siblings of faith in other cultures that are more community oriented to hear what they have to say about the text where I might be missing something because I come from a very individualistic culture. Does that make sense?

00:07:32

Listening to other perspectives helps gain a more complete picture of the message of Scripture. Engaging with different lenses, these are called hermeneutical lenses, is like holding up a diamond to the light, turning it over and shining the light on different parts, enjoying the full multifaceted beauty of it. And this is where, if you’ve heard of queer theology, this is where queer theology comes in and is so useful and important. A hermeneutical lens that “queers” the text can draw fresh insights out of familiar passages.

00:07:59

Now, if we’re going to think about the Protestant historical doctrines of the faith for the book of Romans, I’m not going to say too much more about the historical doctrine of marriage. Karen did a great job. You can read her book. It was short. I read it on Kindle. I was like, “it’s over? Hey, this is something I could recommend. It’s very readable.” But also, it’s just not something Romans is talking about. The main thing that Romans is talking about, and the big main theological push is that salvation is by grace through faith to those who believe in Jesus. And so interpretations that say that say that you have to do something to be saved, or that you have to do certain things to sort of prove that you’ve been saved, go against the historical doctrine of the faith, arguably the most important Protestant historical doctrine of the faith, which is that salvation is by grace through faith.

00:08:59

And so here is a general overview of Romans. [PowerPoint: “Chapters 1-3: All have sinned. Chapters 4-8: Good News. Chapters 9-11: Story of the People of God. Chapters 12-13: Lived Theology. Chapters 14-15: Situation: Weak vs. Strong. Chapter 16: Greetings”] We want to look at the whole book. We want to look at it in context. It starts really theology heavy. The first 3 chapters, the point is that everyone has sinned and so you can’t judge each other because we’ve all sinned. 4 through 8 is the good news that salvation is by grace through faith and that it’s for all people, not just for ethnic Jews but for Gentiles as well. The middle of the book, 9 through 11, is the story of the people of God, because the question then is, well, if anyone can be saved, what was the whole point of the Old Testament? What was the point of the law? What was the point of the Torah? And then in chapters 12 and 13 is where it gets to the lived theology, the “So what?” And in chapters 14 and 15, he talks about the situation of what’s going on. He labels the two kind of factions that are arguing with each other, the weak and the strong, and gives them even more specific instructions. And then chapter 16 is where he has the greetings. And so since the occasion of the writing and the purpose of the book is at the end, it’s really important to pay attention to what’s going on at the end of Romans

00:10:14

when you study the beginning of Romans. The end of Romans and the beginning of Romans get sometimes get pitted against each other, but they communicate with each other, they serve each other, you need both of them to understand the whole picture. So to really get in mind where we’re going with this, we’re going to read Romans backwards today. Backwards – [PowerPoint backwards arrow animation] section by section, to see what we find.

00:10:43

First though, Romans 1:16 and 17 is the main sort of thesis of the book and what the book of Romans is about. And it says, “for I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. First to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, A righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.”

00:11:15

So this is showing what I was just saying, that the purpose of the book is the to share the gospel, to share the good news, to show that salvation is for everyone who believes. First, for the Jews – both for Jews and for Gentiles. So I got the idea to read Romans backwards from a scholar named Scott McKnight. He wrote Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire, and in this book he argues about the importance of reading Romans from back to front. So this is sort of the framework. And according to McKnight, “the message of Romans is a lived theology of Christoformity manifested in peace among siblings – all siblings, not just siblings like me.” The purpose of Romans is to provide lived theology for real life situations. It has a pastoral purpose. Paul was writing to particular people in a particular time, in a particular place, about particular problems. The message of Romans calls for a lived theology of being like Jesus. Jesus didn’t seek his own selfish gain. He died for us while we were still sinners. He accepted us. Christoformity is cruciform, which is two kind of big words - being like Christ is in the way of the cross. It’s cross shaped. Cruciform is cross shaped. The Christian life is called to be walking in the way of the cross, walking in the way of weakness. Throughout Romans and other New Testament passages and summarized really well in Philippians 2, it talks about how Christ had all the power and he gave that up to draw near to people.

00:13:08

Philippians 2 says, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness.” And then he went on to die on the cross as well. And this is a nice summary in the New Testament about what following Jesus is like. We’re supposed to not be selfish. We’re not supposed to leverage positions of power and influence for our own selfish gain. The message of Romans is a lived theology of Christoformity. That’s Christoformity manifested in peace among siblings, all siblings, not just siblings like me.

00:14:01

In our culture, a lot of times when we think of the word sibling and we had to put a word behind it, what word would we put behind the word “Sibling”?

Audience: Rivalry.

Amanda: Exactly. That is the opposite of what “siblings” meant in the original context. Siblings were your closest relationship, closer than even like with your parents. And your siblings, no matter their gender, were all like equally the people you were supposed to be most loyal to. So like a man would be more loyal to his sister than his mother. There’s – I have a whole other presentation on the church as family where I talk a lot more about the importance of the sibling language. But it was a huge, huge deal that they were, the early church, that they were referring to each other as siblings and as brothers and sisters because that was the closest, most important relationship in that society. And so when the Bible talks about us being siblings, that is a huge and important thing to not miss of what kind of relationship we’re being called into. And being called into a relationship, called into relationships with each other where there’s deep loyalty and in places where people had been from different socioeconomic statuses, they’re different genders, they’re different economic levels, they’re different ethnicities. And so that characterized the early church was so much diversity. Everyone who believes in Jesus is a sibling of faith and belongs in the body of Christ. Everyone who believes in Jesus belongs in the family of God. The message of Romans calls for practical lived theology in the way of Jesus. It calls for deep unity and peace between people who had previously been rivals. Following the message of Romans should lead to peace and unity in the body of Christ.

00:16:02

In Romans 16 is where there are the greetings and there are extended greetings. It starts out with information about Phoebe. Romans 16:1, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.” Deacons, um, Phoebe was a deacon. Deacons and overseers or elders were the main leadership roles in the early church, and these positions were spoken of in parallel. And fun fact an egalitarian scholar pointed out one time is that the only person referred to as a “pastor” in the New Testament was Jesus. So when people say, “Oh, there are no women pastors listed in the New Testament,” …there are also no men pastors listed in the New Testament. There’s just deacons, and Phoebe was one of them. So that that’s Cynthia Westfall, she went through and found all of the spots. So Phoebe and many other women listed in Romans 16 were co-laborers with Paul and so if you haven’t read Romans 16 in awhile to just sit down and read it and see how many women there were and how much gender diversity there was. It’s well, like it’s just kind of mind blowing. Like “wow, how did I not notice this before?” It’s also a really big deal that Paul was sending Phoebe because in that culture there was a saying: “the sent one is as the sender.” And so if someone is officially sent by someone else, it’s like they’re their agent. And so for Phoebe to be carrying the letter of Romans to the church in Rome and delivering it to multiple house churches, she would have been the one to read it and to explain it and to analyze it and to do the exposition of it. And so that was a really, really significant thing that she did. Um, and in chapter 16 we see that a person’s gender did not determine or limit their leadership role in the early church.

00:18:01

In Romans 14 and 15, is where we find out the situation of why the letter was written. So there were Jewish Christians and there were Gentile Christians, people who believed in Jesus, who were in church together, who came from these different backgrounds. And the Jews had been expelled from the city of Rome. The emperor didn’t like them, kicked them out, and so the church there continued with only the gentile believers. But then when the Jews were allowed to return to Rome, they came back to the church and found that everything had changed, and they did not like that. Um. Having been in churches where you get a new person who comes in and changes everything, I know first hand that people don’t like it. And so this is what they’re arguing about. The believers who are considered weak in this context are mostly the Jewish believers who have the background of that they need to be observing the Sabbath. There needs to be circumcision. They need to observe sacred time. Like the yeah, sacred time, the Sabbath – time, space, food, and circumcision. And the people who have been running the church all this time are like, “yeah, we stopped doing that. We’re not going to do that.” And so they were writing, so that’s what Paul is addressing. And historically, some of the ways the book of Romans has been interpreted has come out to be a little bit, or in some cases a lot, antisemitic. Which is very bad. And so Scott McKnight really tries to move the framing to not Jew versus Gentile, but weak versus strong. And you’ll notice in the passage Paul refers to himself as a strong person, as one of the strong. So, and he had the Jewish background, so tension in Romans is not between ethnicities, it’s between people who believe you have to follow all the rules you always followed, and the people who believe that there’s freedom in Christ. And Paul’s instruction to these people was “accept one another then, just as Christ accepted you in order to bring praise to God.” And that’s kind of his bottom line of both this section and the sort of the book as a whole. That like, please accept each other like, this – we’re supposed to be together and siblings in unity and in peace. So this whole the question of if people have to be circumcised, if they have to follow the food laws, if they have to follow the Sabbath, etcetera, was a question wherever people were starting churches. And so they had a – this whole council about it in Jerusalem called the Jerusalem Council. And we read

00:21:00

about it in Acts 15 and they made a decision that we can read about in Acts 15:29. It says “you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You would do well to avoid these things.” And so there was an official council got together and said you need to follow the food rules, you need to abstain from sexual immorality, but you don’t have to get circumcised. And but then in both Romans and 1st Corinthians there are exceptions for being allowed to eat the meat. So just because something was officially decided by a council doesn’t mean that it has to be that way, through all time. There can be situational exceptions, and also sexual immorality is in the same category as food sacrificed to idols. One of the big questions, one of the big critiques people will have of affirming arguments that utilize the end of Romans is that they try to say that sexual immorality and the food sacrificed to idols are completely separate items, but they are not. They were considered together in the Jerusalem Council, and what changed was the situation and the people and the cultures of what was going on in Corinth and in Rome at this time, where there was some kind of shift with the food, but there wasn’t with sexual immorality, so there was no need to change it, but it can be changed.

00:22:33

In Romans, at the end of Romans, the main thing they’re arguing about is the food, also the observance of Sabbath and sacred time. But Romans 14:2-4a it says “one person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another whose faith is weak eats only vegetables. The one who eats anything, everything, must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?” And so the bottom line is, don’t be judgmental. Don’t be selfish. Um in Romans 14 and 15 and also in First Corinthians 8 and 10 that talk about this food sacrificed to idols issue and matters of conscience, the measure of whether or not you should eat is a matter of conscience. And something I was taught in one of my classes in seminary is that your conscience and your and the Holy Spirit are different things.

00:23:37

Your conscience is a result of cultural and, you know, spiritual conditioning of how you were raised. And so a person’s conscience oftentimes, you know, we’re taught growing up, you know, don’t kill people and that’s good. Don’t – y’know, listen to your conscience. You know, oftentimes the Holy Spirit and your conscience are saying the same thing, right? But it isn’t always the case. And so in these situations, the act of eating food sacrificed to idols, the observance of the Sabbath, the holiness, the certain sacred spaces like the temple and circumcision were really, really important identity markers that showed everyone else who was part of the people of God. But now the identity marker for who is in the people of God is baptism. And that’s not a gendered requirement like circumcision was a gendered requirement. But anyone can be baptized. All genders can be fully participating in the family of God. And so for people who grew up with these things were so important, it goes against their conscience. It was so hard. Like “I can’t eat this food. What would my grandmother say?!” Right? Like I can’t do that, you know, so you can have grace and make space for people who just can’t exercise freedom. But also they were free to eat the food sacrificed to the idols, and they were free from having to observe all these other identity marking things that they could observe.

00:25:17

And so you can’t take the freedom away from someone else. If someone else’s conscience says, oh, don’t eat that food, they can’t eat it, it’s OK. And someone could even change. And you know, maybe at first they’re not OK to eat the food, but then over time maybe they become ok and um. It’s. It leaves - the book of Romans leaves space for people who are in process, you know, and who are learning and growing. And when you’re trying to form a diverse community, to be able to embrace all the siblings of faith wherever they are, it’s a really beautiful thing.

00:25:57

Audience: Yeah, sorry, quick question.

Amanda: Sure.

Audience: This slide before chapter 15, verse 29, I’m sorry to bring this back there, but I wasn’t able to capture what you had said clearly in my head about the phrase that goes together eating the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. And why those two are placed together because that is a very divisive issue students share. That’s just to make sure that I hear everything.

Amanda: Yeah. So just in

00:26:25

the verse there: “you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols… and from sexual immorality.” And so those are the two things that they said don’t do. But then later Paul shows, hey, actually one of those things it is OK to do as long as you know it’s not too torturous to your soul. And so to. And so, and there were situational things that a lot of times with the food sacrificed to idols, they talk about that it was the much less expensive food. And so there were people who one of the, I mean, I learned this in undergrad at Biola. Like this is very from very conservative scholarship that like. The poor people were like, if we can’t eat this, we cannot eat. And they realized like, oh, this was not a rule we should have made. And so there was a shift and there was a change and so, but there wasn’t a change in sexual immorality from when they made this statement to when First Corinthians and Romans were written because sexuality in

00:27:38

the 1st century was just horrific. Like we would need a really strong trigger warning to go into much detail. So it’s situational, yeah. People really like to cling to their definition of sexual immorality, but that’s one of the things we have to recognize in our assumptions that we bring to the text. We say, “what is sexual immorality to us?” and we project that onto the text. But that’s a place where we need to look at the context of the culture to say what did sexual immorality look like to them? Oh, it looked like men using boys. Oh, it looked like people asserting their dominance over their slaves. Oh, it looked like people visiting brothels where there were people who had been human trafficked. And of course, those things are terrible.

00:28:30

And, you know, we would still consider those sexual immorality and we’d still condemn them. But it’s been widened to include so much more than that. And so the bottom line of the lived theology of Romans 14 and 15 and chapter 2, which I’ll get back to, is to not be judgmental. Romans 14:13 says, “therefore,” right, this is the sum up. In my background, we always say “what’s the therefore, there for?” and so like this is summing up the whole rest of the book. “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind to not put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” And what is the stumbling block? They talked about that – Paul wrote about this in Romans 9. He said “the people of Israel pursued the law as the way of righteousness.” So the identity markers of saying we have to do these things to show that we’re the people of God and this is what you’re supposed to do. This is the law. “The people of Israel who pursued the law as a way of righteousness have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were by works.” So they said, we do these things, so therefore we’re the people of God. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. The stumbling stone is works. The stumbling stone is assuming I have to do these things to prove that I’m part of the community of the people of God. But it’s faith that defines who is in or out of the people

00:30:08

of God. The book also concludes, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” And then also we saw Chapter 15 to accept one another. The default in the Church should be unity, peace and acceptance. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to exclude someone else, not the other way around. Following strict rules through works to uphold identity markers like sacred food aren’t what defined the people of God. What you do and how you treat each other is.

00:30:45

This is the situation that gave rise to the epistles and the rest of Romans needs to be read in this framing. The goal is peace and unity and not being judgmental on disputable matters is the key application of Romans. And disputable matters include identity defining practices such as sacred food and time. In

00:31:07

our modern day church, we have our own identity markers. and um, there are a lot of people who – I’m finding as we recently came out a little wider, a little more widely – do not like that when you identify as part of the queer community, even if you don’t change anything about how you’re actually living your life, you just say “oh, we’re queer”: they do not like that. And um, that just like basic like “I’m going to reject someone because this is their identity” is literally going against the whole point of the book of Romans. You’re not supposed to create new identity markers. That goes against what the whole point. The whole point is you don’t have to follow the identity markers. So why are we making up new identity markers? There was a new way believers were to be in relation to the outside world, a way that didn’t rely on strict observance of religious rules to maintain appearances. Instead, believers were supposed to have transformed minds. And that’s where 12 and 13 talks a little more generally about lived theology.

00:32:18

Romans 12:2 says “do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is: His good, pleasing and perfect will.” So it’s not the rules that establish identity markers that are supposed to be upheld. There’s supposed to be transformation of the mind and careful analysis to determine God’s will in any given situation. The right thing to do is relative, not fixed. You’re supposed to transform your mind. You’re supposed to test and approve God’s will to determine what is good and pleasing and perfect. And the world that he’s talking about, that you’re not supposed to conform to, was the pattern of the 1st century Roman Empire. Some people like to try to recreate the culture of the 1st century Roman Empire, and that is the opposite of what this is telling us to do, right? We’re not supposed to conform to the pattern of empire that achieves peace by killing everyone so there’s no dissent and that you know, you know, like it’s just yes. You all get it. You all get it. Um. Removing requirements of dietary restrictions, observance of sacred days, and other identity markers doesn’t mean that anything goes. There should still be some kind of transformation. Romans 12:3 “For by the grace given me, I say to every one of you, do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.”

00:34:03

It’s about, again, not being selfish, not being conceited or arrogant. Don’t be judgmental. And then Romans 12 goes into the body of Christ passage. And Romans, Romans 12 and 1st Corinthians 12 are both the body of Christ passages. And in both of those churches they were talking about this food sacrificed to idols issue – can we eat the food sacrificed to idols? And in both of those he talks about that it’s allowable and that you can allow for conscience. We need to try to strive for unity and peace in the body of Christ and that the body is ordered by the Holy Spirit. Romans 12:4-6 says “For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body. And each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts according to the grace given to each of us.” And it continues, “If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith. If it is serving, then serve. If it is teaching, then teach. If it is to encourage, then give encouragement. If it is giving, then give generously. If it is to lead, do it diligently. If it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.” We need each member to function as God has created them, and this includes the full spectrum of humanity, including women and queer folks living and serving authentically according to the gifts the Holy Spirit has given.

00:35:42

Another thing thinking about reading the Bible in context is to pay attention to what overarching messages show up multiple times throughout the Bible. And throughout the New Testament, the overarching way the body of Christ is talked about is that they’re siblings and they’re body of Christ and so those are the guiding things that should guide how we live and order our churches rather than like saying “oh, this one verse from Romans 1:26, I think means this and so...” Or, you know, “this one verse from 1st Timothy 2:12 says that women can’t be teachers,” except that here in Romans 12 and throughout the New Testament, we see that the Holy Spirit gives gifts freely and orders the body of Christ and doesn’t discriminate based on gender or other statuses. Romans 12 also says to “be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.” It says to “live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.” Romans 13,

00:36:49

it was mentioned, talks about the submission to governing authorities, which we don’t have time to go into depth in that. But in the context it’s talking about not trying to gain power, right? And we’re supposed to be humble and we’re supposed to serve one another. and so. My interpretation of the passages that talk about submitting to the authorities is more about just part of the overall thrust of you’re not supposed to try to seize power. Christianity is about laying down your own self-interest and caring for others. You’re not supposed to pursue wealth and power and influence. You’re supposed to be like Christ and lay down your life for your siblings. And that section sort of concludes with Romans 13:8-10. “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another. For whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery. You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” The measure of whether or not something is loving, Spirit filled is if it is loving. And that love is measured by whether or not it does harm. And the person receiving the love is the one who gets to decide if it’s loving or harmful, Amen? [applause] Yes. If it would show up on the internet with the caption, “there’s no hate like Christian love,” it is not loving.

00:38:36

And so we’re not supposed to just go to the Bible and take individual verses or individual words or phrases and craft them into a new sort of identity of “here’s a new set of rules we have to follow to prove that we’re the people of God.” We’re supposed to love our neighbors and do no harm. And it’s not actually that complicated. And we can make room for people’s consciences. Of course if someone’s harming someone else and is like “my conscience says that I need to keep harming this person,” then we can talk to them about that. But the but you know, sometimes, like, “I personally can’t eat that.” That’s OK. We don’t have to be like, “you need to eat this because you can!!” like, it’s OK. We can let people be where they’re at. “Do no harm” is inherently situational. We can’t make up sweeping prohibitions that affect large swaths of people. We need to operate on a case by case basis.

00:39:35

Romans 9 through 11 tells the story of the people of God. So the disputes in the church were over eating food sacrificed to idols and observing holy days. And the solution is unity accomplished through humility and not being judgmental and selfish. The first 8 chapters are the theology itself and that salvation is by grace through faith and not through works. And so the question after the first eight chapters is like, well, so if anyone can be saved, what was the point of the Israelites being the people of God? And so that’s what this section is addressing. Where we’ve been, where we are, where we’re headed is sort of the catch phrase of this section. and Romans 9 through 11 is the story of the people of God and how Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. The Gentiles are grafted into the tree. In Romans 9 it says that “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children. But it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” It is the children of promise, the people who have faith, who are part of the inheritance of Abraham’s line. It says that salvation does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. In chapter 10 it talks about the way to be saved. Romans 10:9-10 which is, this is going to be a little more familiar verse for a lot of people, “If you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. The same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him.” And

00:41:28

so when someone says, you know, just quotes a random verse out of context, we could reply with this one and say, hey, I declare with my mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. So why are you adding identity markers? Which I feel like out of context that wouldn’t make sense. Don’t actually do that. Don’t argue with people on the internet. Or, I mean, unless, unless like you’re – yeah, I’m not going to tell you what to do. Listen to your conscience!

Audience: If you want to learn about talking to people on the internet come to our talk tomorrow.

Amanda: Yeah. Yes. OK. Billy and Celeste will help you with that.

As I mentioned earlier, the body of Christ imagery is found throughout the New Testament, and this language of there being no difference between Jew and Gentile is found throughout Romans and throughout the New Testament as well. And. One of the most famous places you find this language is Galatians 3. “So in Christ Jesus you all

00:42:26

are children – you are all children of God through faith. For all of you who are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There’s neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” And so throughout the New Testament, we see that being part of the family of God, you don’t get excluded from the family of God based on ethnicity or socioeconomic status or gender. We are all one in Christ Jesus and we are all part of the inheritance. And Romans chapter 9 and chapter 4 talk a lot about this inheritance language. In Chapter 11, it kind of responds to the question, did God reject his people? And it talks about ingrafted branches. And the answer is no, God didn’t reject his people. He saved a remnant of his people and he saved the ones who have faith. Chapter eleven says that all Israel will be saved and talks about God’s mercy towards all his people. And it’s important when studying the book of Romans to pay attention to who is being addressed in any particular point. Most of the time the letter is talking to the weak, or the people who want to enforce those older identity rules on the newer people. But

00:43:52

in this section, he’s talking to the strong members, the newer members, to those in society who believe that they don’t have to follow all the old rules. And he talks about being grafted into the tree and the olive tree represented the people of God. And Paul uses the illustration of an olive tree to talk about the people of Israel and the newcomers. He said that “some of the branches have been broken off of the tree of Israel, but you have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root. The root is holy, and so the branches are holy as well.” The Gentiles, or non Jews, have been grafted into the tree of the people of God and belong there. He uses the image of these Gentiles being from a wild olive tree instead of from a cultivated olive tree. And in Romans 11:24 it says that “you are cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted into a cultivated olive tree. This would have been contrary to nature.” This is the same language that’s used in Romans 1. Something that is “contrary to nature” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t belong there or that God doesn’t have mercy for it.

00:45:19

God took this olive, this wild olive tree, and granted it grafted into the cultivated olive tree in a way that was contrary to nature, but that was beautiful and expansive, and that grew the family of God. And the message to the Gentiles in this section is that, as ingrafted branches, they were not supposed to “consider yourself to be superior to the other branches. Do not be arrogant.” And so the message is the same to both the strong and the weak: don’t be arrogant and judgmental and act superior to the others.

00:46:01

Romans 4 through 8 is the good news. Salvation is by grace through faith. The descendants of Abraham are determined through faith, not by works or by following strict religious identity markers. Chapter 4 talks a lot about Abraham. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. He had faith before he was circumcised. It wasn’t the circumcision that made him saved. That was just a sign of that he was saved. Romans 4:13 says “it was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” Romans 4:16 and 17, “Therefore the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who have faith of a the faith of Abraham. He is the Father of us all. He is our Father in the sight of God, in whom he believed. The God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.” Belief in God is what leads to being part of the family of God and being a descendant of Abraham, and is what leads to qualifying for the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, that he and his family would inherit the world. But that inheritance would not come through the law. It wouldn’t come through obeying a strict set of identity defining rules. No, it would come through the righteousness that comes by faith, and anyone who has the faith of Abraham is counted as offspring of Abraham. Inheritance and inclusion in the family of God is dependent on faith, not works.

00:47:50

Chapter 5 talks about peace in the Spirit. Romans 5:9 says, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him?” God does not pour out His wrath on His children. And his children are people who believe and have faith. Romans 5:1 opens, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” and therefore we have hope. This section talks about how death came through Adam, but life came through Christ and that through one man sin entered the world and through one man, comes life and grace and forgiveness. Romans 5:12 “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” In Romans 5:14, “death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.” Sin existed before the law. Being loving and kind and not selfish and not doing harm are the measures of what’s right.

00:49:01

When Romans one talks about like from the creation of the world, what has been made known, what is good, it’s been made clear to them or whatever exactly it says. It’s not saying that the cultural context of the 1st century Roman Empire that set up relationships exactly this way, and how we like to try to apply that in our modern context is a is apparent for all time. What it’s saying is that looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and saying, “I know. I know what’s good and evil and I’m going to selfishly take what I think would be good for me” is the root of sin. And the created order in Genesis shows that male and female were created more similar than different. That they are equally image of God and equally supposed to care for the earth. And we could talk a lot more about that, but it’s not enforcing or setting up gender roles or marriage. It’s talking about how all humans are created in the image of God and are meant to work together and as strong allies for each other and helpers and to care for each other and the earth well.

00:50:27

Um, chapter 6 talks about works versus grace. In chapter 5, it ends with that when sin increases, grace increases. So then chapter 6 opens with like, well, so if grace increases when sin increases, so then maybe we should sin more so we can get more grace! And no, don’t do that, don’t do that. And so Chapter 6 talks about like, yeah, you don’t, don’t intentionally sin. Romans 6:3-4 says, “don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” And so through baptism as the new initiating right into the family of God, (and by the way, there’s more than one right way to do baptism), we symbolically are buried with him through baptism and symbolically rise from the dead, and we live new life, a life that is not selfish and that is loving and that does not cause harm.

00:51:40

The book of Romans defines what you’re supposed to do to live that life there in the same book. You’re not supposed to, like, make up new rules and project them onto chapter 6. Like, you know, when I learned this in youth group, it was like, OK, so you can’t listen to secular music. You know, like, no, this is this. It’s it’s. You have to look at – it’s relative and it’s it requires using your mind and having the renewing of your mind and having the mind of Christ and what is actually the good thing to do in this particular situation. And then Chapter 7 is about sanctification. It’s about the struggle to do what’s right. And the fact that a lot of times we try to do what’s right, but we just can’t do what’s right. Romans 7:15 through 19 says “I do not understand what I do. What I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing.” And how relatable is that struggle? Or even if you think you’re doing the right thing and then it causes harm anyway and you want to be defensive about it, you know? It’s it’s difficult and it’s hard, and that’s the process of sanctification. Romans 7 also says, so my siblings, oh, this is a slide. Here we go. “So my siblings, you also died to the law through the body of Christ.” So the law being, you know, strict religious rules, right? “You also died to the law through the body of Christ that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” And so that’s what chapter 8 is about, is about walking in

00:53:37

the Spirit and living life in the spirit, life in the spirit. And having the Spirit to help guide us, to help us know what to do. And of course, Romans 8 we’ve got another really lovely therefore, what is the therefore, there for? To sum up all of chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Romans 8:1 and 2, “therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Because through Christ Jesus, the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” This is the central point of Romans. The Bible will often have parallel passages which are kind of across from each other. And then there’s one central thing that is like the big important thing, and this is the big important thing in the middle of Romans, is that there’s no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. We are not condemned. If you believe in Jesus, you’re in. You’re not condemned.

00:54:49

Life in the Spirit is through the renewing of the mind. Remember Romans 12:2 said “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Likewise, Romans 8:6 says “the mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. Romans 8:14 through 17 says “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The spirit you received does not make you slaves so that you live in fear again. Rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. The Spirit himself testifies with our Spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs, heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” And this section of chapter 8 talks about sharing in sufferings and the way of Christ and the way of the way of Christ is cruciform, it’s cross shaped, it’s suffering, it’s laying down your interests, or what you think would be best for you, for others who are weaker. It’s not saying you have to just suffer and submit to authority because that’s what you got to do. It’s specifically that you have power and you’re laying that down for someone who’s weaker.

00:56:19

Now let’s look at this summary of chapters 4 through 8 briefly. We’ve talked a lot about inheritance, especially in chapter 4. [Slide: “Chapter 4: Inheritance”] People who inherit, the people who are part – descendants of Abraham, are people who believe. Chapter 5 is about justification. [Slide: “Chapter 5: Justified”] Those who believe in Jesus have peace with God. They are justified. In chapter 6 we talked about baptism and about how people die as through the waters of baptism, metaphorically die and then rise to live new life and that that life is in the Spirit. [Slide: “Chapter 6: Washed”] Chapter 7 talks about sanctification and how people are sanctified. And how you try to do what’s right, but you but you can’t. And it’s just hard. And the Holy Spirit is there with you. [Slide: “Chapter 7: Sanctified”] And in chapter 8, we learned that there’s no condemnation. [Slide: “Chapter 8: No Condemnation”] Now, um. It’s – if anyone has spent a lot of time with the so-called “clobber passages,” um, these, these terms “washed,” “justified” and “sanctified” in concert with “inheritance,” maybe sound familiar? From 1 Corinthians 6?

00:57:40

Do you not know that those who have faith will inherit the kingdom of God? Those who believe in Jesus have peace with God. Anyone who has faith in Jesus has been justified, sanctified, and qualifies for washing in the waters of baptism. Those who have faith are descendants of Abraham, heirs of the promise, and are siblings in the family of God.

The kingdom of God is characterized by humility and a lack of self-centeredness. There are those who claim to follow Jesus so that they can manipulate others for their own selfish gain. They use the Bible for photo-ops, and continually heap sins upon sins to distract the public from their previous transgressions. They flippantly assume grace will increase, so they show no repentance. They brag openly about assaulting women, peeping on teenagers, and the lack of accountability they would face if they shot someone in the middle of the street. Those who do these things are not living life in the Spirit. They are not acting with humility and love towards their neighbors. Those who claim to believe, who have no fruit of the Spirit in their lives, who cause harm to those around him – them, who trade in grift and revenge, are not living out kingdom values. They’re not walking in the way of weakness. They’re not living in light of the cross.

Of course those who are living in the new way of the Spirit should show evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. Of course their actions should be unselfish and loving.

We need to renew our minds so that we can have the mind of Christ. This will enable us to carefully discern who has the Spirit or if we have been taken in by someone. We cannot – we must not – exclude any Spirit filled sibling of faith from the family of God.

We can’t just rely on how someone looks on the outside to discern if they have the Spirit. Just because someone kinda looks like, or says they’re this kind of person, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s how they’re actually living. We have to pay attention to what they’re doing and discern their hearts.

We, as those who have been buried with Jesus through baptism into death and raised from the dead to live new life, should live lives characterized by love.

01:00:12

And so with all of that background, then we can look at the first 3 chapters. Chapter 1 has the thesis we looked at Romans 1:16 to 17. “For I’m not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written, the righteous will live by faith.” And so that’s the opening of Romans. A lot of times we think of the vice list sort of as the first thing in Romans, but the first thing is about the importance of faith. And in Chapter 1, what Paul is doing is he’s setting up a caricature of the stereotypical gentile heathen, and he’s setting a trap for the weak, the people who want to make the other people follow all of their rules.

01:01:14

And so there’s a couple of things that this could be, and I think it’s important to look at both the Greco-Roman context and the Hebrew context. So, looking at the caricature in Greco-Roman context, it has been suggested that he could be condemning the Roman emperors who were very immoral and horrible. And it’s very possible to condemn someone without naming them. [laughter] You can indirectly call out the problematic actions of a powerful leader without using their name in a way that might, you know, get you on their radar, right? The emperors at this time were really horrible people. And I went back and forth on how much of the Greco-Roman culture to share in this and it would just need a really strong trigger warning. So we’re just, I already talked about it a little bit earlier and we’re just going to go with it was utterly horrific, the things that powerful people did to less powerful people in the Greco Roman context. And not everyone in the Roman context was like some horrible, evil person, right? So if they’re hearing this and like, “ohh, yeah, I’m better than those other people,” – right? Because it’s the lines aren’t just the lines between ethnicities, the lines are, you know, who’s judgmental and like “I’m better than everyone and everyone else has to live exactly like me,” right? And the people who are like, “no, I have some freedom. I can do some things.” Then also the people who are like, “yeaaah! freedom! we’re just going to do whatever!” it’s like, no, you guys like, are you? You really believe this? Are you actually, are you actually in, you know, in this? And there’s always going to be this tension of people who are like, “OK, we have to follow all the rules and do all the things,” right? in, in chapter – in 1 Corinthians 7, one of the lines is like, “it’s better to not touch a woman at all!”, right? And they’re like, and he’s like, “you guys, you guys, like, it’s OK, you’re allowed to get married.” Like, but then there’s also people who, like in 1 Corinthians 6, are like, “oh, we can do whatever we want, let’s all go to the brothel! Whoa, party!” You know? And it’s like, “no, what are you doing?” Like, so there’s always going to be the people who want to just have total freedom and the people who want to have total repression. And we need to find something in between. And of course, that’s through the renewing of your mind. That’s through living life in the Spirit. That’s through having love and doing no harm.

01:04:08

So in Romans 1, he’s puffing up all the judgmental people and then in chapter 2, he says you have no excuse because you judge others. And he flips it around and he deflates their ego that being judgmental is just as big of a sin as any other sin. We talked about the Greco Roman context. We’re going to talk

01:04:29

about the Hebrew context now. People love to jump to – people love to jump to Genesis when we talk about Romans 1, but it’s – that’s not the best, most accurate context for this passage. I already talked a little bit about the created order and what it was talking about, so I’m not going to recap that too much, but what most scholars concur that this is about is that this is drawing from something called the Wisdom of Solomon. And this wasn’t from Solomon the king in, you know, the son of David, like way back in the BC times, this is something that someone wrote in Greek in the 1st century BC, so like just before the New Testament, that had wisdom and sayings, you know, like wisdom of Solomon, like for or like this is from the tradition of Solomon, you know. So, and in it they have these caricatures of, you know, the wicked gentile heathens who serve idols instead of, instead of God, and condemn that. And so, it’s in this book, it’s – not like – it’s not random. Like, it’s not – they would have for sure been familiar with this because it was in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. So like this was like in their Bible that they were using in their translation. So this is something that was fresh in their mind that they would have read and understood. And it would have been a more accessible passage since it was written more closely to their time than the Genesis passage so. This is a better um. Sort of. Background information – this is a stronger place – a stronger argument for where Paul is drawing from in these images. And

01:06:42

Wisdom of Solomon is actually in the Catholic Bible. And so if you wanted to read it, you can go onto a Bible gateway or some other website and look at like the NRSV or they call it the NRSVue, the NRSV updated edition or whatever other version of the Catholic Bible you find, has the Wisdom of Solomon in it. And so if you are nerdy like me and want to go and read the whole thing to help understand the context of Romans 1, you can do that. I was so excited when I found out this was just accessible on my computer. Um. And we’re not going to read a ton of Wisdom of Solomon or Romans 1, but we’ll get a little taste of some of the things that are similar in them. Wisdom of Solomon 11: “In return for their foolish and wicked thoughts, which led them astray to worship irrational serpents and worthless animals, you sent upon them a multitude of irrational creatures to punish them, so that they might learn that one is punished by the very things by which one sins.” And here’s the verses from Romans 1: “They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four footed animals or reptiles…. They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator… and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” So you see, those are very similar things, right? And so. He’s using a familiar passage to help them and, you know, kind of modifying it for his context and using it to puff people up so that then he can deflate them and say, hey, no, the actual problem is being judgmental. You’ve got to stop being judgmental. The people he’s directing this to are the people who are going to feel puffed up and haughty from hearing this. It’s not

01:08:39

directed at the people who are doing bad things. He has – there are other passages in other places that talk more directly to people who are not doing good things. And that could be like Romans 6, you know, like, oh, well, life in the Spirit, walk in the way of the Spirit. And you know Romans thirteen: Do no harm. Love your neighbor. So the whole point of this first and last section of Romans in chapter 2 and chapter 14 is don’t judge each other. And so when we use Romans 1 and 2 to judge people, that’s the opposite of the point of the passage. One of the things we do, one of the main interpretive things that we do in my tradition is to ask “what is the author doing with what they are saying?” And so if we look at what is Paul doing with what he’s saying here, he’s setting a trap and to make the point that you’re not supposed to judge other believers. And that is the point of this section. Romans 2:1, “You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And then there’s the reminder there that Chapter 14 also talks about not being judgmental.

01:10:03

Romans 3 is sort of a summary of the that everyone has sinned. And so we can’t, you know, try to make up new strict rules to try to control people. We have to rely on God’s grace. We talked, we mentioned the Romans Road earlier and a lot of people memorize “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” but read all of verses 22 through 24: “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

01:10:58

Beloved siblings of faith: We are not condemned by God. No matter how “unnatural” it may seem to some, we have been grafted into the family tree.

And I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, neither height nor depth, nor any powers, (not even the powers of bigotry, propaganda, fear, disgust), nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Queer siblings of faith: The good news of Romans is good news for us. We have been washed. We have been sanctified. We have been justified. And we belong in the family of God. Thank you.

Subscribe now

When we were girls, my friend and I would explore the church while our parents chatted. We’d traverse every hallway and closet, nook and cranny, and had come to know the inner workings of the facilities like the backs of our hands. I remember one evening in particular. It was a Wednesday evening after choir rehearsal, and we had been meandering through the dark halls between the choir room and the sanctuary. There was a bathroom there that had a locker room with stairs leading up to a mysterious door. We had often wondered what lay behind that door, and this evening, to our surprise, the door was unlocked. Giggling and nervous, we carefully pushed the door open. On the other side of the door was a giant, empty bathtub. “Oh,” my breath caught in my throat, “this must be where they do baptisms.” Looking up, I saw the stage, and beyond it, the vast, dark sanctuary. Perched on the edge of the tub, gazing at the worship center, I knew we had found a special place. It felt like we had found holy ground.

To Jesus’ community, the temple was the most holy place, and treating this sacred space with the appropriate reverence was of utmost importance. The temple was the place where the people of God gathered to worship and offer sacrifices. It was where the High Priest made atonement for the people’s sins by entering the inner sanctum, the Most Holy Place, on the Day of Atonement, the most holy day of the year. Proper worship at the temple, by the proper people, at the proper times, was the central function of the Israelite religion. It connected them with God, and it also distinguished them from outsiders. The identity of the people of God was wrapped up in their observance of sacred space. Jesus cleared the temple – a controversial act recorded in all four Gospels. When Jesus cleared the temple, he broke the boundary between sacred and secular space, redefining the very identity of the people of God.

Subscribe now

The Temple – 1^st Century Context

The original temple had been built by King Solomon, and had three distinct areas: the courtyard, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place. Unfortunately, the original temple had been destroyed. It was rebuilt, but desecrated by a foreign king when he made a sacrifice to Zeus in it during the intertestamental period (the time between the Old and New Testaments). In the first century, in Jesus’ context, the temple was being rebuilt by Herod. But it wasn’t being rebuilt as it had been – the new structure was far larger and more grand, and had a more complicated map.

Rather than rebuilding the temple with a courtyard for all of the people of God to assemble while the priests carried out their duties in the Holy places, Herod’s temple had an outer courtyard and three additional courtyards outside of the holy sanctuary. As a person progressed through the different sections of the temple complex, they tread on increasingly holy ground. The divisions in the temple complex marked a progression of increasingly sacred spaces. These sections were:

- The outer court – the Gentiles Courtyard

o Anyone, including Gentiles (foreigners) and those considered temporarily or permanently unclean could enter (temporary uncleanness could be caused by menstruation, disease, etc.; permanent uncleanness could be caused by disability etc.)

o Between this court and the next, there were inscriptions warning foreigners to stay out. Archaeologists have even found a couple of these. The following graphic says, in Greek: “No foreign-born person is to enter the protective enclosure around the temple; whoever does will have only himself to blame for the death that follows.”

- The Women’s Courtyard

o This was as far as ritually clean Israelite women could progress

- The Israelites Courtyard

o Only ritually clean circumcised Israelite men could enter

- The Priests Courtyard

o Only priests (ritually clean, male, circumcised, from the correct family) could enter

- The Holy Place

o The main, T-shaped sanctuary building which had the Holy Place and Most Holy Place, which were separated by a veil

o Only certain priests could enter, and only at certain times

These divisions showcased not just a sacred-profane continuum of space, but also of people. “The temple effectively functioned as ‘a map for social relations.’”[1] How far one could or couldn’t progress into the temple indicated how holy someone was as a person, and affected how they were treated in Israelite society. The measure of a person’s holiness relied directly on their physical sex and whether or not they had a properly circumcised body part. A person’s holiness relied on being from the right lineage. A person’s holiness relied on health and physical ability. These unchosen traits defined the social hierarchy in 1^st century Israel. Again, these distinctions deviated from the original temple, where the only division was between priests and the people.

The original distinctions in the temple had been expanded and adapted based on the religious leaders’ interpretation of Scripture and applied not merely to the temple, but to all of life. The distinctions between sacred and profane space highlighted the distinctions between sacred and profane persons. Breaking the boundary between sacred and profane space would also serve to break the boundaries between sacred and profane people.

Subscribe now

Jesus and the Temple – The Critique

In the outer courtyard, the Court of Gentiles, a market had been set up to exchange currency, collect the temple tax, and sell animals for sacrifices. The place where foreigners and other outsiders were supposed to be able to come worship God had been taken over by loud, distracting animals and merchants. John’s account (John 2:13-17) shares:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Notice that the problem was that a house of worship had been turned into a market. Instead of being a place where foreigners and unclean Israelites could worship God, greed took precedence. Merchants, allowed by the religious leadership, grew wealthy selling the very things that were required for worship within the temple itself. Exchange rates took advantage of those who had traveled great distances to seek the one true God. A temple tax squeezed widows and other poor Israelites out of their meager funds. When Jesus cleared the temple, he was not driven by anger at sin in general. The problem was the monetization of religion. The problem was greed leading to exploitation of the poor. The problem was exclusion of foreigners and the unclean from fellowship in the community.

In Mark and Luke’s accounts, in the aftermath of Jesus clearing the temple, He explicitly condemned the teachers of the law and called attention to a widow’s offering. Mark 12:38-44 says:[2]

As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

This is important context for the clearing of the temple. The critique Jesus made when he cleared the temple was of religious leadership and their selfish actions. He accused them of “devour[ing] widow’s houses” – which was carried out directly through a temple tax that took “everything” from widows, who were poor and socially vulnerable. The critique Jesus made in the temple was of those who were wealthy and powerful, and who honored themselves at the expense of others.

Subscribe now

Jesus as Foreigner

Furthermore, in the gospel of John, the clearing of the temple is a critique of those who should have recognized Jesus as one of their own. The first chapter of John sets up the gospel with the framing that “the true light that gives light to everyone,” Jesus, came to the world, but “the world did not recognize him,” even though “the world was made through him” (Jn 1:9-10). Throughout the gospel of John specifically (and also throughout Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus critiqued those who should have recognized him: those who were religious. John 1:11-13 says: “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” The definition of who would belong in the family of God no longer relied on familial descent, but rather on belief in Jesus. This is a central theme of John’s gospel.

In John 2, the author highlighted two key events from Jesus’ life, one from the beginning (turning the water into wine) and one from the end (clearing the temple.) By quoting Psalm 69:9 in the account of the clearing of the temple in John 2:17, “Zeal for your house will consume me,” John tied the cleansing of the temple to his introduction in chapter 1. Let’s look at the context of the Psalm (Ps 69:8-9):

I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;
for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

Jesus came to his own family, the people of God, but they did not recognize him, they did not receive him. They were not living in a way that honored the house of God. They had added rules that excluded certain people from full fellowship in the community of the people of God. Jesus’ zeal for the house of the Lord looked foreign to those who should have understood. Jesus critiqued those who should have recognized God when He came.

The critique Jesus made when he cleared the temple was of religious elites, who greedily took from the poor and neglected to cultivate space for foreigners and those who were unclean to worship the one true God. The problem was greed. The critique was of practices that excluded and harmed the lowly – foreigners, unclean people, and the poor.

Subscribe now

Jesus and the Temple – Jesus’ Actions

As we saw in John’s account of the clearing of the temple, Jesus drove out the animals that had been for sale in the outer court. That court was supposed to have been the place for foreigners to worship the one true God. Instead, this place of worship had been overtaken by greed. He “scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables” (Jn 2:15). Notice that it was the tables of the money changers that were overturned. Money changers were there to exchange foreign currency, and it was common to give an unfair exchange rate. Jesus specifically disrupted those who were exploiting foreign pilgrims.

Likewise, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus “drove out all who were buying and selling there” and “overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves” (Mt 21:12; c.f. Mk 11:15; Lk 19:45). There is a unity in the accounts of the cleansing of the temple across all four gospels that is unique and important. It is clear that Jesus’ actions in the temple were vitally important to all four gospel writers, and that his actions decried the transformation of the house of the Lord into a market that disrupted worship and lined the pockets of elites. These points are driven home by the Old Testament passages quoted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts.

Subscribe now

Old Testament Connection – Jeremiah

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of the clearing of the temple, Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Jesus said: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Matt 21:13; cf. Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46). Quoting Jeremiah 7:11, accusing Israelite leadership of turning the house of the Lord into a “den of robbers,” directly confronted the problems of greed and exploitation. The religious elites were “robbing” the poor and the foreigner by setting up a market in the Court of Gentiles. Let’s look at the context of Jeremiah 7:11. Jeremiah 7:4-11 says:

Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.

Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

Note that in this passage, in addition to the condemnation of stealing, murder, adultery, perjury, and following false gods, there is a positive charge to “deal with each other justly” and that justice in particular is refraining from “oppress[ing] the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow” (Jer 7:5). The concept of “justice” in the Old Testament refers to the righting of relationships: caring for the foreigner, orphan, and widow is the primary function of crafting a just society.[3] When the people of God care for the poor and disenfranchised, the Lord is exalted.

When the lowly are exploited, as was happening in the temple in the 1^st century, the house of the Lord is profaned. Once again, we see that what Jesus was addressing when he cleared the temple was the injustice of taking financial advantage of foreigners, the poor, and those who were otherwise undesirable. People came to worship the one true God; instead, they were robbed.

-----

This essay is getting long, so I’m breaking it up into separate posts. Stay tuned for Sacred Space Part 2!

[1] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 170.

[2] See also Luke 20:45-21:4

[3] My capstone paper for my Master’s program at Talbot was on justice in the Old Testament; I have far more to say here but will have to return to this topic in a future post due to space constraints.

Subscribe now

A few summers ago, I traveled with my spouse and our young child to a lovely town outside Seattle for my sister-in-law’s wedding. Our barely two-year-old looked adorable in his little suit, and he rocked his role as ring bearer in the traditional ceremony. After the festivities, we went into downtown Seattle to sightsee for a couple days. Unbeknownst to us, we had walked right into the heart of Seattle Pride. As one might expect from a conservative family accidentally dropped into one of the largest Pride events in the country, we were mortified. We certainly got a different view of the Emerald City than we had expected.

Every culture has its own ways of marking time, of remembering the past and looking to the future. Weddings, baby showers, graduations, and the like mark significant events in the lives of individuals and families. National holidays are special times for particular countries, and cultural and religious holidays are special for their respective cultural and religious groups. Going from a conservative church wedding to the cultural celebration of Pride was jarring. Nevertheless, both groups were engaging in the practice of marking special time. Identifying and honoring certain times as more special, or even as sacred, is a practice common to humanity throughout history.

Honoring sacred time was very important to Jesus’ community. The Israelites had weekly Sabbaths and annual festivals such as Passover that they carefully observed. Jesus confronted the religious leaders’ mandates for the proper way to celebrate sacred time.

Subscribe now

Cultural Context

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy” (Exo 20:8 NIV) was one of the ten commandments given to the people of God at Mt Sinai. While there were some general instructions in the Torah for observing the Sabbath, the people needed to know how the practicalities of observing the Sabbath played out in day-to-day life. This resulted in a complex system for following Sabbath Law, eventually compiled in the Mishnah.[1] Over time, the rules for observing sacred time became more detailed, specific, and legalistic than the Scriptures initially described.

Additionally, in the cultural context of the time Jesus lived, carefully observing the Sabbath was important to the core identity of the Israelites. They had been persecuted by a foreign ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had forbidden the practice of Sabbath observance.[2] Maintaining proper Sabbath practices was a key way to show a person’s belonging in the Israelite community and devotion to God. The Israelites of Jesus’ day also thought that if they perfectly followed the law, that God would deliver them from foreign oppression.[3]

Jesus confronted the religious leadership’s interpretation of the proper way to observe the Sabbath. The religious elites were focused on carefully following a strict set of rules, but Jesus declared that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. The law was supposed to contribute to human flourishing, not detract from it.

Subscribe now

Jesus and the Sabbath - Grain

There are several instances throughout all four Gospels of Jesus healing people or doing things the religious leaders thought he and his disciples shouldn’t be doing on the Sabbath. In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus’ disciples were picking heads of grain. The Pharisees asked, “‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’” Jesus responded, “‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? …he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.’ Then he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’”

The point of the Sabbath wasn’t to follow rules for the sake of following rules. The Sabbath was meant to bless people. It was meant to bring rest. It wasn’t meant for people’s needs to be neglected. David and his men needed food; Jesus’ disciples needed food. According to Jesus, it was okay to meet that need even if it technically would have been considered a violation of the law. Meeting human need was more important than following the Sabbath the exact way the religious leaders thought it should be followed.

Jesus and the Sabbath – Healing in Mark

To put this story (Mark 2:23-28) in context, note that it follows the story we studied in my previous post where Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, drawing criticism for associating with the wrong sort of people. It also follows a story of Jesus’ disciples not fasting at the expected time – another example of Jesus and his disciples deviating from cultural norms and religious expectations (Mark 2:18-22). In the story following the incident with the grain, Jesus intentionally upset the religious leaders when he healed a man on the Sabbath. Mark 3:1-6 says:

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

When Jesus healed people, most of the time, the sick person had come to or been brought to Jesus. In this instance, however, it was Jesus who approached the person needing healing, not the other way around. The religious leaders were carefully watching Jesus, and Jesus intentionally gave them an answer. By having the man with the shriveled hand stand up in front of everyone in the synagogue before healing him, Jesus clearly demonstrated: yes, I would heal on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ question to those gathered in the synagogue about whether it was lawful or not to save life or to kill had a clear answer. There was broad agreement in the Israelite community against killing, not just on the Sabbath, but on any day. And – according to the religious leadership of the day – saving a life was “the one legitimate reason for breaking the Sabbath.” In fact, “Jesus’ adversaries were in full agreement that it was permissible to save a life on the Sabbath.”[4] When Jesus healed the man’s hand on the Sabbath and then asked, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” (Mk 3:4), Jesus redefined what it meant to “save” a life. The parallelism in the question equates doing good and saving a life, and doing evil to killing. A shriveled hand was not an immediate life-or-death situation; yet, Jesus assessed that healing the man would do good and therefore bring life. Jesus demonstrated that doing good and bringing life, which contribute to human flourishing, were more important than following rules set by religious leadership.

Subscribe now

Jesus and the Sabbath – Healing in Luke

There’s a similar story in Luke 13:10-17. Like the story in Mark, Jesus was in the synagogue on a Sabbath, saw a crippled person, called them forward, and healed them. This time, the religious leaders explicitly pointed out their interpretation that healing should be reserved for the six days of the week apart from the Sabbath. How did Jesus respond? Let’s read it (Luke 13:10-17):

On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

As in Mark 3:1-6, Jesus redefined what it meant to save a life. He characterized the woman’s disability as something that “bound” her, and set her free. Jesus demonstrated not only the value of human life, but the importance of the quality of human life. The synagogue leader’s reaction to Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath was in line with the dominant interpretation of the time that only life saving work could be done on the Sabbath. Merely being disabled wasn’t considered life threatening according to the religious experts. Therefore, healing wasn’t technically allowed. However, Jesus healed her anyway, doing good and bringing life.

After healing her and being confronted about it, Jesus called out the hypocrisy of the religious elites. It also wasn’t technically allowed to untie an animal and lead it to water. The interpretation of what constituted work on the Sabbath was very strict, but some rules were enforced more meticulously than others. Jesus called out the hypocrisy of the people of God for caring more about their own animals than about their disabled neighbors.

Jesus and the Sabbath – Conclusion

Throughout the Gospels, the religious leaders, who were confident that they were following the Scriptures the one right way, were the people with whom Jesus had problems. They rejected people who didn’t, or couldn’t, conform to their high standards, even while making exceptions for themselves. Whether or not someone conformed to the high standards set for Sabbath observance determined their place in Israelite society. When Jesus confronted the Sabbath traditions of his people, it threatened their very conception of what it meant to be the People of God.

To the religious elites, maintaining that identity was more important than human flourishing. So, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, he challenged the very purpose of the law. Were the People of God supposed to interpret the Scriptures in a way that crafted a strict set of rules that allowed them to demonstrate their set-apart status, or were they supposed to interpret the Scriptures in a way that contributed to human flourishing? Jesus, the “Son of Man” who was “Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28), inaugurated something new. A new identity for the People of God that included everyone and that prioritized human flourishing. Human flourishing is more important than following strict religious rules, even when it feels threatening to one’s identity as part of the People of God.

Subscribe now

Application

Jesus loved people. He advocated for their flourishing. Taking care of people’s physical needs was more important to Jesus than following the letter of the law. The law of the Lord is meant to be sweet, like honey. It is meant to refresh the soul and give joy to the heart. The instruction of the Lord is radiant, and gives light to people’s eyes (see Psalm 19). Jesus demonstrated, over and over in his conflicts with the religious leaders, that the Scriptures were meant to be interpreted in ways that encouraged human flourishing. If an interpretation of the Scripture doesn’t lead to sweet, refreshing joy, that could be a sign that it’s time to reevaluate those conclusions.

Jesus didn’t do away with the Old Testament. No – he confronted how it was interpreted and applied. We shouldn’t do away with the Bible either, but, as the people of God, we have a responsibility throughout history to continually assess whether or not the way we apply Scripture contributes to human flourishing. We need to continuously reexamine our interpretations of the Bible to make sure our policies don’t cause harm. As it says in Romans 13:8-10:

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Human Flourishing, Evangelicals, and the Queer Community

The policies American Evangelicals consistently advocate for cause real harm to the LGBTQ+ community. For example, a peer-reviewed study found that anti-transgender state laws, such as the Tennessee law that bans gender affirming care that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, “directly caused an increase in suicide attempts among transgender youth by up to 72%.”[5] And, did you know that the national suicide hotline for LGBTQ+ youth is scheduled to be shut down?[6] Blocking people from getting life-saving or life-improving services is not Christlike. Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct believers to legislate what type of healthcare a person can get and when. Friends, it is time for a serious reexamination of how we interpret and apply the Bible, because our policies, while well intentioned, have been causing harm to our neighbors.

[1] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 123.

[2] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 3.

[3] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 144.

[4] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 136.

[5] https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/supreme-court-greenlights-healthcare-discrimination-for-transgender-youth-in-u-s-v-skrmetti/

[6] https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/trump-administration-orders-termination-of-national-lgbtq-youth-suicide-lifeline-effective-july-17th/

There’s something special about sharing a meal together. Across time and culture, food facilitates fellowship. In Jesus’ day, who you ate with – or who you didn’t eat with – mattered a lot both socially and religiously. A couple months ago, for my March 2025 post, I wrote an introduction to Joseph Hellerman’s scholarship on Jesus as Boundary Breaker. Now, for April and May, we have a special longer post examining the significance of mealtime in the cultural context of the New Testament, and discovering why Jesus’ unconventional dining habits opened the doors for all siblings of faith to be included in the family of God. (In the future, I may post longer articles every other month instead of a shorter article each month.)

Subscribe now

Cultural Context

In the first century, the Israelites were living under foreign rule, and whether or not someone followed the dietary laws was a measure of that person’s faithfulness, either to God or to the foreign powers. There are even accounts from the intertestamental period (the time between the Old and New Testaments) of people who chose to die rather than to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols. Challenging dietary laws would have been very offensive because it would have been seen as a breach of loyalty. Whether or not someone followed the dietary expectations demonstrated their belonging in the Israelite community.

Additionally, the rules for following God had become more specific and legalistic than the Scriptures initially mandated. The religious leaders made the dietary and table fellowship rules more strict, even refraining from eating with certain Israelites. The Pharisees, in particular, took on a set of practices that required purity of food and of participants at every meal – it was important to them for everyone at the table to be ritually clean. Their particular interpretation of the Law got to define the identity of who was considered “the true people of Yahweh.”[1] Whether or not someone was in or out of the community of the people of God was defined by the rules set by the religious leadership.

According to Hellerman, the term “sinner” was “malleable” and could be used to exclude anyone who did not conform to strict terms of conduct as defined by the religious elite.[2] The food had to be prepared properly and eating had to be done in a state of ritual purity. The religious leaders wanted everyone to apply the (supposedly) correct application of the Torah to their daily lives so that the people as a whole could maintain their status as the chosen people of God. Even small differences of practice were seen as serious problems. Jesus brought in “those whom the Pharisees and others had marginalized as ‘sinners.’”[3]

Jesus lived in a society that valued honor, and showcasing that honor. Meals weren’t privately eaten in people’s homes; they were often open to a wider social class so that the prestigious could show off their social position and honor themselves. The most prestigious person would get the best place at the table and the best food. The seating arrangements and even the food served illustrated everyone's social position. Slaves or beggars might be just outside or around the table, hoping for a handout. Some religious groups seated people based on who was deemed the most righteous. The host of the dinner had the privilege of dictating the hierarchy and determining who was “in” and who was “out.” Jesus challenged these social norms and developed a scandalous reputation by sharing meals with those the religious elite considered “sinners.”

In Jesus’ cultural context, who a person ate with and how they were treated at meals were important measures of that person’s belonging in the community. According to Dr. Hellerman, “Mealtime served as a crucial vehicle for reinforcing systems of social stratification, and for preserving boundaries between various ethnic and social groups.”[4] According to another New Testament scholar, Mark Strauss, it was scandalous that Jesus was eating with “tax collectors and sinners” because, in that context, “to dine with someone meant acceptance of that person.”[5] During mealtime, people showcased to which community they belonged – and Jesus kept welcoming those who didn’t belong.

Subscribe now

Sitting with Sinners

Jesus often spent time with the “wrong” people. In Luke 15:1-2, “the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” (NIV) Eating with sinners and tax collectors was an ongoing thing that Jesus did; he regularly kept company with those whom the religious leaders disapproved. He even had a tax collector among his disciples!

In Mark 2:13-17, we read about Jesus’ calling of Levi (Matthew), who was a tax collector – someone the religious elites definitely didn’t approve of. Tax collecting was considered a dishonest profession because it often featured corrupt financial practices. Mark 2:13-17 says:

Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

When Jesus called Levi, it was when he was literally sitting in the tax collector’s booth. Jesus knew Levi’s profession without a shadow of a doubt. Yet – Jesus went to eat at his house anyway! In Luke 19:1-10, when Jesus went to eat at the home of another tax collector, Zacchaeus, the people were not pleased. They said, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner”! (Lk 19:7).

In Matthew and Luke’s accounts of Jesus calling Levi to follow him, as in Mark’s, the religious leaders wanted to know why Jesus was eating with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32). Remember, the religious leaders wanted everyone to apply a particular application of the Torah to their daily lives so that the people as a whole could maintain their status as the chosen people of God. The religious leaders weren’t jerks who wanted people to suffer or for rules to be followed just for the sake of it. They were holding to deeply rooted beliefs that all of the people of Israel had to follow all the rules so that God would deliver them from foreign oppression and protect them from harm.

When Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, bringing shame on himself in an honor-shame culture, breaking critical purity rules, and accepting those considered unclean and unworthy, he challenged the way the religious leaders of the day interpreted and enforced laws. Simply by eating with sinners and tax collectors, Jesus demonstrated acceptance of them as they were. He didn’t require ritual purity or a radically changed lifestyle to be accepted.

Subscribe now

Repentance

Now, I realize that many of my readers are familiar a graphic, commonly shared on social media, that says: “Jesus didn’t eat with sinners and tax collectors because He wanted to appear inclusive, tolerant, and accepting. He ate with them to call them to repentance.” There are several variations of this quote circulating on the internet, emphasizing the call to repentance. Let’s talk about it.

The idea that Jesus ate with sinners to call them to repentance comes from Luke’s account of Jesus’ calling of Levi. When asked why he ate with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus answered: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Lk 5:31-32). Sometimes, we really latch onto those last two words: “to repentance.” As we saw earlier, these two words are not included in Mark’s Gospel. And, in Matthew’s account, not only is “to repentance” omitted, but the importance of mercy is emphasized by Jesus’ quoting of Hosea 6:6: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Furthermore, each of the three accounts of Levi’s calling is preceded by an instance of Jesus forgiving and healing a paralyzed man – without a call to repentance or repentant action. (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). Repentance isn’t a condition of forgiveness.

So, what does the phrase “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Lk 5:32) mean in the context of the book of Luke? Let’s look ahead just a bit from Luke 5 to Luke 7 to find out.

Subscribe now

“Sinful” Woman

In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus attended a formal meal at a Pharisee’s house, and a sinful woman anointed Jesus’ feet. What happened? How did Jesus treat this sinner?

When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

“Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

In this narrative, a woman imposed on a dinner party. The text doesn’t specify why she was considered a “sinner.” Many have suggested sexual sin. Whatever it was, she was unclean and not considered worthy of inclusion. Jesus’ acceptance of her was radical. And he even took it a step further: he turned cultural expectations on their head when he explained how she was actually the good host, not Simon the Pharisee. Simon’s treatment of Jesus was dishonoring, but the sinful woman knew who to honor as righteous – Jesus.

In that context, the host, the religious leader, would have determined who was in and who was out. But Jesus called the uninvited sinner the honorable host even though she transgressed the rules for table purity. Jesus redrew the boundary line between the people of God and outsiders. He redefined the qualifications for those who are “in” from those who carefully follow the rules to those who have great love. Furthermore, it was her faith that saved her, not repentance. Love and faith triumphed over works.

So, the “sinner” at this meal not only wasn’t called to repentance, but was instead honored by Jesus. Let’s look ahead to Luke 19 for further clarity on what Jesus meant when he said he called sinners “to repentance” in Luke 5:32.

Subscribe now

The Repentant Sinner

Throughout the Gospels, the only account of someone who was part of the “tax collectors and sinners” group that Jesus ate with who repented and turned from their sinful ways was a wealthy tax collector named Zacchaeus. In Luke 19:1-10, Jesus was traveling through Jericho, and the chief tax collector, Zacchaeus, famously climbed a tree so he could see Jesus pass by. When Jesus saw him, he said: “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today” (Lk 19:5). Zacchaeus “came down at once and welcomed him gladly” (Lk 19:6). The people were not pleased, and complained that Jesus had “gone to be the guest of a sinner” (Lk 19:7). What happened next? Luke 19:8-10:

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Jesus didn’t issue a call to repentance – a genuine encounter with Jesus was enough for Zacchaeus to recognize the error of his ways and change his actions on his own. Zacchaeus was a man wealthy through dishonest means; he recognized the error of his ways, made restitution and changed his lifestyle. This repentance led to salvation.

In the Gospels, the only person who repented upon dining with Jesus was a tax collector – someone who was wealthy through exploitative financial practices. Jesus did not condemn sexual sin. He condemned the wealthy. He condemned self-righteous religious elites. But there are no examples of Jesus eating with people living in sexual sin and calling them to repentance. He also didn’t eat with sinners to “appear” inclusive, tolerant, and accepting. He ate with them to actually include and accept them.

The religious elites had gotten it wrong. They wanted everyone to follow a strict set of rules. But Jesus called people into love. By eating with sinners, Jesus redrew the boundaries for who would be included in the community of the people of God from those who followed rules set by the religious elites to those who had great love and faith.

Subscribe now

Following the Rules

As someone who has carefully followed the rules set forth by modern-day religious leaders my whole life, the message of Jesus’ radical inclusivity is uncomfortable and offensive. No one likes being told they’ve been wrong, especially when it turns out that some of the things they had been working so hard to do (or not do) were unnecessary. It’s difficult to welcome people who feel free to dress however they want when you’ve been adhering to a strict dress code for yourself. It’s difficult to see people in a happy same-sex relationship when you would’ve liked to have dated someone of your same sex. It’s painful to see other people have choices and freedoms that were not afforded to you. It can be scary to discover that some of the things that had been done with the intention of “following Jesus” often did more to serve the interests of modern-day religious elites than to function as the hands and feet of Jesus.

Unlike some religious leaders claim, just because someone is part of the queer community does not mean they are inherently more sinful than anyone else. Friends, believe me when I tell you – there are so many queer Spirit-filled siblings of faith. These are people who believe in Jesus, have faith in God, and love for their neighbors, and whose lives abound with the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). I have met many queer Christians who have such a deep devotion to Jesus that they can’t walk away from him, even though most have been abandoned by the church in one way or another.

I didn’t walk around with a “WWJD?” bracelet around my wrist as a youth to grow up to become just like the self-righteous religious elites with whom Jesus butted heads. Jesus sat with “sinners,” and accepted them as they were. I’ll do the same. I know this message is difficult for many to accept, but when you’re ready, y’all can come find me. I’ll be at the table with the queer kids.

Next up: Sacred Time

[1] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 228.

[2] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 228.

[3] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 233.

[4] Hellerman, Jesus and the People of God, 206.

[5] Mark L. Strauss, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Mark, “2. Eating with Sinners”.

In Jesus’ day, the people of God had their own set of social dynamics. The Israelites had been chosen by God to be set apart. There were certain practices that were core to their identity as the people of God and that distinguished them from outsiders. These core identity markers related to maintaining the sacred vs. the secular, and following rules about sacred food, sacred time, and sacred space were the most important signs of piety. These practices formed boundaries that set the people of God apart from outsiders, but that also drew lines within the community itself. Jesus broke down these boundaries. He actively confronted the application of the law that excluded unclean people. In doing so, he enabled anyone, from any group, to be welcomed into the community of the people of God.

Subscribe now

From Interesting Scholarship to Lived Community

My next few posts will be based on a book by Joseph Hellerman entitled Jesus and the People of God: Reconfiguring Ethnic Identity. Dr. Hellerman is known for his scholarship on the church as a family, and I had the honor of taking his last Church as Family class at Talbot a few semesters ago. Crossing paths with someone at the end of their career is special; to hear a lifetime of wisdom and a professor’s final message to students before retirement is a treasure. Shortly after the class concluded, I peppered him with questions over lunch. I don’t remember exactly how I worded this particular question, but his response was to laugh and say, “you want me to tell you how to get people to actually live like this? Let me know if you figure it out!” Apparently, it’s common for people to gladly listen to information, declare it “interesting!” and then move on unchanged.

The concept of church being a “family” is thrown around a lot, but in practice, churches aren’t always great at fostering biblical community. Sometimes, we slap the label “family” onto our fellowship groups more like a marketing gimmick than a way of living. We call our dysfunctional systems “family,” using a bible-y word from a super smart scholar to baptize a dysfunctional church system with false legitimacy. Or, perhaps we read some of the scholarship and use a couple “take-aways” to add to what the community is already doing. It's rare for a community to be truly formed and transformed by the radically inclusive call for the church to be a family.

Hellerman is a prolific writer, and it can be easy to miss the forest for the trees. Taking his class allowed me to see the big picture of what it means for the church to be a family. The class started with Jesus and the People of God: Reconfiguring Ethnic Identity, a high level academic monograph. Much of Hellerman’s work has been rewritten for a non-scholarly audience, but this important piece of scholarship is still sitting in the academy, collecting dust. I believe that this scholarship is the key to unlocking the ability for church communities to actively live out what it looks like to truly be a biblical church family.

Subscribe now

Boundary Breaker

Jesus and the People of God convincingly argues that Jesus was a boundary breaker. Jesus redefined what it meant to be part of the people of God. He established the church to be a family, and the early church functioned as a new and radically inclusive kinship group. Forming church communities into thriving kinship groups requires breaking down the boundaries that keep people apart. Without this scholarship, the church as family material merely adds to what we already do rather than utterly transforming the church.

Jesus broke down the boundaries keeping people apart and redefined the identity of the people of God. He did this by confronting practices related to sacred food, sacred time, and sacred space. My posts in the coming months will consider each of these categories in greater depth. In the meantime, consider:

· Jesus frequently upset self-righteous religious leaders by eating with “sinners,” breaking the rules about sacred food. (Read more here)

· Jesus intentionally healed on the Sabbath, declaring that the Sabbath (sacred time) was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. The Law of the Lord should bring life to God’s people instead of burdensome rules. (Read more here)

· Jesus cleared the outer court of the temple, where Gentiles and unclean Israelites should have had space to worship the one true God without interruption. Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7, declaring that what had previously been considered sacred space will be called “a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:7, Mark 11:17)

In each of these categories, sacred food, sacred time, and sacred space, Jesus confronted the self-righteous religious leaders, but had compassion for those who had been excluded from full participation in the community. Jesus continually brought in outsiders, and the early church followed his lead.

Subscribe now

Modern Boundaries

The modern American church has many boundaries, some of which are clearly spelled out and some of which are unspoken. There can be a tendency to judge people based on outer appearances – a person’s service in the church is often determined more by gender, age, attractiveness, marital status, etc. than by evidence of the call of the Holy Spirit.

Some church communities categorically exclude anyone who is part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Other churches might allow same-sex attracted Christians to participate as long as they stay celibate or find a way to make a mixed orientation marriage work. Across the spectrum of evangelical churches, “sexual immorality” is strictly defined and enforced, especially when it comes to queer relationships.

Furthermore, there are explicit guidelines about the roles men and women must play. Women are excluded from most leadership roles, and people who don’t conform to gender norms are frequently excluded. It doesn’t seem to matter if someone is gifted and called by the Holy Spirit; it doesn’t seem to matter if someone is qualified through education or experience. The most important characteristic defining who is fit for ministry, it would seem, is the set of private parts with which the candidate was born.

Conclusion

The enduring message I received from Church as Family class is that we can’t exclude anyone who has been gifted and called by the Spirit from full fellowship in the Christian community. Anyone and everyone who believes in Jesus is a sibling of faith who belongs in the family of God. There are certainly times when we need to hold someone accountable for causing real harm and may need to “expel the wicked person” (1 Cor 5:13; I’ll discuss these situations further when I write about 1 Corinthians). The burden of proof is on the one who feels the need to keep someone out, not the one who wants to bring someone in. To be a healthy church family, we need to follow Jesus’ lead and break down the boundaries that keep us apart. Will you join me in welcoming all siblings of faith in the church?

I spoke at the Q Christian Fellowship Conference a couple weeks ago, and the recording and transcript of my presentation will be shared when it is available. In the meantime, please enter your email below to ensure you receive my future posts. For now, please enjoy my previous work!

VINDICATING BATHSHEBA

Boast no more so very proudly,
Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth;
For the LORD is a God of knowledge,
And with Him actions are weighed.

1 Samuel 2:3¹

The evangelical church is in an “age of reckoning.”² Russell Moore described the recently revealed sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention as an “apocalypse.”³

How did we get here? In recent years, some sources have explored powerful celebrity pastors who have abused and controlled others for their own fame and fortune.⁴ In hindsight, we can often see a lack of character in certain aspects of their lives.⁵ However, in light of the revelation of sexual abuse by leaders who, seemingly, acted as though they were truly devoted to the Lord, we must grapple with the reality that no one is immune from sin.⁶ The Bible tells us about a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam 13:14, cf. Acts 13:22) who committed these same abuses of power: David.

¹Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem.

²Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. ³So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” ⁴David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. ⁵The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.” (2 Sam 11:1–5)

Tragically, unfounded accusations have been lobbed at Bathsheba, with devastating consequences. Though refusing the king was not a viable option, especially since her husband and “all Israel” (2 Sam 11:1) had gone away, scholars, pastors, and popular resources have subjected her to all manner of speculation. There was no one to protect Bathsheba or come to her aid when David determined to take her. Yet, assertions blaming the victim proliferate, thus establishing social mores that allow predators to flourish.

The speculation surrounding the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11–12 has contributed to a culture in the church where certain male leaders are given near-absolute power, while women are dehumanized and silenced. Contrarily, if we wish to create a culture within the church where women and men thrive as equals, we must actively promote an interpretation of the story of David and Bathsheba that affirms Bathsheba’s innocence by acknowledging the imbalance of power between them.

Torah Observance in OT Narrative

To remedy these problems, the first step is recognizing that OT narrative must be interpreted in light of the Torah. In any given story, the characters that followed the directives of the Torah were righteous, while characters who operated against the guidance of the Torah were unrighteous.⁷ In 2 Sam 11:1–5, Bathsheba was the Torah-following, upright player, while David succumbed to the allure of power and thus opposed the Torah.

The purpose of this narrative is to describe David’s sin and turning point. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are one literary unit detailing the rise and fall of Saul and then of David.⁸ This episode is the critical turning point in David’s story. Within 2 Sam 11–12, the author utilized a chiastic structure to emphasize the key point:⁹ “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Sam 11:27). He was the one corrupted by power, taking advantage of the vulnerable and using those close to him to cover it up.

The actions in this narrative were driven by David.¹⁰ He “saw” (ra’ah) someone who was “good/beautiful” (tov), “and he took” (laqakh) her. Second Samuel 11 recapitulates Gen 3. In the garden, the woman “saw” (ra’ah) something that was “good/beautiful” (tov), “and she took” (laqakh) it.¹¹ David directly opposed Torah instruction by coveting his neighbor’s wife and committing adultery (Exod 20:14, 17; 2 Sam 11:2, 4). Continuing the recapitulation of Gen 3, David attempted to cover and hide his sins. He called Uriah back from the war, hoping that Uriah would sleep with Bathsheba and obscure David’s misdeed. However, Uriah refused (1 Sam 21:5, cf. Lev 15:18, Deut 23:10). Escalating the attempts to hide his trespasses, David again scorned the law of God by ordering the death of Uriah (Exod 20:13, 2 Sam 11:14–15).

The Israelites had been warned that the king would “take” (laqakh) the “best” (tov) of all they had. In 1 Sam 8, Israel gathered and said to Samuel:

“. . . appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” . . . The Lord said to Samuel: “Listen to the voice of the people . . . they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. . . . solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.” (1 Sam 8:5b–9)

Thus, Samuel warned the people: The king will “take your sons” (8:11), “take your daughters” (8:13), “take the best [tov] of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves” (8:14), “take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards” (8:15), “take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys” (8:16), “take a tenth of your flocks,” and finally, “you yourselves will become his servants” (8:17).

Even with this warning, “the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles’” (1 Sam 8:19–20). David became the king who takes.¹²

Another significant action performed by David is that he “sent” (shalakh) others to do his bidding.¹³ He “sent” Joab and “all Israel” to fight his battle, contra to what the people were hoping a king would do for them. He “sent” messengers to inquire about the woman, then “sent” them to bring Bathsheba to him. He “sent” to Joab to request that Uriah be “sent” to David, a request which was granted. When plots to manipulate Uriah proved unsuccessful, David “sent” a message to Joab instructing that Uriah perish in battle. After Bathsheba mourned her husband, David “sent” for her to become his wife. David was the one with power and authority. The warning from 1 Sam 8:17 was fulfilled: all Israel became his servants, obeying whatever he sent them to do. Not even Joab, the commander of the army, dared to defy David’s suspect instructions. All the people were subject to their king, as Samuel had warned.

The few actions Bathsheba performed, on the other hand, were Torah-positive (2 Sam 11:2, 4, 5, 26). First, she was “bathing” as part of a religious exercise, a ritual cleansing. When David sent for her, she went with the messengers. After David took her, she “purified herself from her uncleanness” and “returned to her house.” When she discovered she was pregnant, she sent word notifying David of the situation. Finally, after her husband died, she mourned for him. Her actions were in line with Torah instruction, and there is no indication that she intended or even consented to engage in sex with David.

In 2 Sam 11:2 we read, “Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance.” His reasons for meandering to-and-fro¹⁴ on his roof that evening remain a mystery to the modern reader.¹⁵ What we do know is that David “saw” (ra’ah) a woman who was “very” (me’od) “beautiful/good/the best” (tov). This phrase is descriptive and does not indicate a flaunting of beauty. The tree in the garden was “good” (tov, Gen 3:6). Rebekah, as a more similar example, was described as “very” (me’od) “beautiful” (tov, Gen 24:16) while she was simply carrying a jug to draw water (Gen 24:15).

In our introduction to Bathsheba, we see one who is living as a righteous follower of Torah: she was bathing. In Leviticus, the Torah instructs that a woman

shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days. . . . Everything also on which she lies . . . and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. (Lev 15:19–21)

Due to this directive, evening was a normal time for women to bathe from menstrual impurity. Additionally, ritual purification included washing clothes and bedding. This may have been done in private courtyards or publicly, near the water source.¹⁶ Since communities in the ancient Near East were communal, there is a possibility that women worked together to perform these duties. David may have observed a group of women bathing themselves and doing laundry. Whether or not she was in a group, Bathsheba was indeed going about her monthly routine, faithfully following the law of the Torah. This adherence to the teachings of Torah illustrates her position as one who is righteous.

Some sources, however, assert that Bathsheba bathed with the intent to seduce David.¹⁷ One scholar goes so far as to claim that she intentionally “moved in next door” to King David for the express purpose of exposing herself to him in a bid to improve her social status.¹⁸ This speculative reading neglects the importance of her familial credentials listed in 2 Sam 11:3: “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” Bathsheba was someone’s daughter. Bathsheba was someone’s wife. To an English speaker’s ears, “Bathsheba” sounds like a play on words related to her bathing. But bath/bat in Hebrew means “daughter.” The Hebrew says bath-sheba bath-eliam esheth uriyah (“. . . wife of Uriah”). “Daughter . . . daughter . . . wife.” It was significant for a woman’s patronymic to be included,¹⁹ and this set of three familial names in a row is emphatic. Her father, Eliam, and her husband, Uriah, were both among David’s mighty men (2 Sam 23:34, 39). Eliam’s father was Ahithophel, one of David’s advisors (2 Sam 15:12, 23:34). Furthermore, she was not only someone’s daughter, she was “the best” (tov) of daughters. Bathsheba was an upstanding citizen who belonged to a significant family. There is no indication that she was seeking to improve her socioeconomic status through seduction.

After inquiring about her, “David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her” (2 Sam 11:4a). David “sent” messengers and “took” her.²⁰ Both verbs, “sent” and “took,” are grammatically masculine and singular; both were performed by David. In the Hebrew, the term “came to” (feminine singular) was performed by Bathsheba. Since the text explicitly states, “and he lay” (masculine singular), the proper interpretation of “she came to him” is simply that she literally walked with the messengers to the palace. “She came to him” does not signify mutuality or consent to the intercourse. Messengers arrived with instructions from the king to go to the palace, and she complied.

Interestingly, certain Greek manuscripts of 2 Samuel read “he went in to her” where English Bibles (representing the Hebrew text) have “she came to him.”²¹ It appears that the Greek translators, or perhaps a Hebrew reading now lost to us, understood the actions to be David’s and thus clearly stated that this was David’s sin and that Bathsheba was not a consenting, independent agent. Moreover, the introduction to Ps 51 indicates that it is “a Psalm of David . . . after he had gone in to Bathsheba” (italics added). The Psalm also specifies masculine singular action. There is no indication that Bathsheba moved sexually toward David. The focus is on David’s exploitation of Bathsheba. He “saw” a woman who was “beautiful,” he “sent” for her, he “took” her, and he “lay with” her.

Second Samuel 11:4 continues: “and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house.” Grammatically, the participle “she had purified herself” is reflexive, self-directed, hence the presence of “herself” in English translation. This participle is feminine and singular, leaving no doubt that the action was performed by Bathsheba, not David. The phrase can rightly be translated parenthetically, referring to v. 2, as in the NIV: “(Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness),” or as in the NASB, as a new action: “and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness.” The ambiguity of the grammar in Hebrew leaves the timing of the action open for interpretation.

The Torah sheds light on why Bathsheba may have purified herself after intercourse: “If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening” (Lev 15:18). Ever religious, Bathsheba followed Torah instruction to purify herself after copulation. She was likely purifying herself from uncleanness both at the beginning of the story and again after David took her, an interpretation supported by the fact that the verb is a participle and can indicate a process. At no point does the narrative indicate that she stopped being purified. Finally, “she returned to her house.” She did not try to secure a place in the palace, as suggested by some sources.²²

When she discovered that she had conceived, she sent a message to David: “I am pregnant” (2 Sam 11:5). It is a simple statement of fact. Some sources insist she should have notified Uriah instead of David,²³ but this suggestion ignores that Bathsheba likely did not have authority to send a message to the battlefront. It fails to account for the cultural context. She was a Torah-observant woman in a Torah-observant community and recognized that she could be killed if the king did not intervene and take responsibility for his actions: “if a man is found sleeping with a married woman, then both of them shall die” (Deut 22:22).

Subscribe now

Guilt and Consequences

The Lord saw David’s evil actions and sent Nathan who confronted him with a parable about a rich man representing King David, a poor man representing Uriah the Hittite, and a ewe lamb representing Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (2 Sam 12:1–4). One would expect David, the shepherd king, to fiercely protect the “sheep” entrusted to him (1 Sam 17:34–36). Scholars concur that, “in the ancient Near East, the king was to protect the socially weak.” Thus, his “crime involved an abuse of power.”²⁴

Paradoxically, it was the Hittite, not the Israelite king, who was the good shepherd. The “poor man,” Uriah, “nourished” the one in his care. He brought her in, fed her from his own table, and loved her as a daughter (2 Sam 12:3). This use of “daughter,” bath, recalls Bathsheba’s name and familial credentials in 11:3. Illustrating Bathsheba as a “ewe lamb” further proves her innocence, since ewe lambs were used for sacrifices of purification (Lev 14:10), and corroborates the premise that Bathsheba was purified from uncleanness throughout and beyond the story (2 Sam 11:4). Even after being taken, she was referred to as a symbol of purity and as a daughter. Bathsheba was not cast out of the community. She continued to belong in and to her family. To emphasize this connection, later passages refer to Bathsheba as the “wife of Uriah” (2 Sam 12:10, Matt 1:6).

Upon hearing Nathan’s story, David, for the first time in this narrative, revealed a desire to follow Torah instruction, saying: “he must make restitution for the lamb fourfold” (Exod 22:1, 2 Sam 12:6). Nathan declared: “You are the man!” (2 Sam 12:7). David realized he had “sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam 12:13). As recorded in Ps 51, David called upon the compassion of the Lord, requesting to be cleansed from his sin. David’s life was spared, but his son died instead (2 Sam 12:13–14). The death of the infant was a consequence of David’s sin; the child died instead of him.²⁵ It was not a punishment or indictment of Bathsheba, as suggested by a notable Christian educator and pastor.²⁶

Further, Nathan shared that “the sword shall never depart from your house” and that the Lord would “raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun” (2 Sam 12:10–12).

As foretold, Absalom, David’s son, conspired to usurp the throne and drove David out of Jerusalem. He appointed Ahithophel, Bathsheba’s grandfather and David’s former counselor, as his own advisor (2 Sam 15:12). On Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom “pitched a tent . . . on the roof,” the very roof where David espied Bathsheba, “and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (2 Sam 16:21–22).

David’s sins could not be hidden from God, nor were his actions free from consequences. Jesus said, “There is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops” (Luke 12:2–3). Beginning in the garden (Gen 3), the sins of humanity have reverberated throughout history. Paul wrote, “Just as through one human being sin came into the world, and death came through sin, so death has come to everyone, since everyone has sinned” (Rom 5:12 CEB). David’s secret rape of Bathsheba directly led to the public rape of ten other women (2 Sam 15:16). Sin begets sin. All humans, no matter how devoted to the Lord they appear, continue to pridefully “take” what seems “best/good/beautiful” to them, continually spreading death to others.

One further theme of 1 and 2 Samuel is that the Lord exalts the poor and humble and brings low the rich and powerful (1 Sam 2:7–8). Bathsheba was lowly and mourning after the loss of her husband and infant. However, God exalted her by providing a son, Solomon, a king who would be included in the messianic line. It was not through her own striving that she and her son became exalted;²⁷ rather, it was Nathan who initiated the conversation to ensure Solomon’s kingship (1 Kgs 1:11–14). Ultimately, God remembered her, cared for her, and redeemed the situation.

The Church’s Response

The tale of David and Bathsheba reminds us of the sins of humanity reverberating, recapitulating throughout history. It reminds us that sin cannot be hidden from the Lord, and that he exalts the humble by redeeming what has been broken. Instead of emphasizing these points, however, many evangelicals have weaponized this story to promote the “virtue” of women’s modesty. They have ignored the power dynamics at play, thus silencing victims of abuse by church leaders. They have exalted the powerful, and further oppressed the weak.

One popular author exhorts:

For our safety, we women need to try to keep the men around us from temptation. Unfortunately, as we know, we can cause lust in a man, without realizing it. But we need to take responsibility for anything we might do to cause trouble.²⁸

A pastoral resource ponders: “Although David was to confess that his foul sin was his, and his alone, one wonders how far Bathsheba was the accomplice in such a sin, as well as its provocation.” This same author then suggests Bathsheba should have been more “careful” and “modest.”²⁹ When women are taught that they can cause men to sin by their mere existence, they live in constant fear that they will cause someone else to fall into sin. Women become mere objects of temptation to be hidden away, rather than fully human image-bearers of God. The charge to constantly be “careful” and “modest” plants seeds of deep anxiety in faithful believers. When women pour all their attention into protecting men from temptation, and themselves from potential sexual assault, no one thrives.

Another malformed application is that a woman, or anyone confronted with unwanted sexual advances, needs to “just say no.”³⁰ This application neglects the power imbalance between a king and a subject in the text and the power imbalance between a religious leader and a congregant in the modern context. In situations where one party is stronger and more powerful and determines to abuse, even rape, the other, it does not matter whether the weaker party says “no.” They will be coerced or forcibly overtaken. This directive discourages victims from coming forward and assures them that if they speak up in the church, their concerns will be dismissed. It also fills the soul of the weaker party with guilt over not having been able to prevent the assault.

In the same vein, some suggest Bathsheba should not have told David about the pregnancy.³¹ This approach to the text discourages victims from holding perpetrators accountable. We are concerned about damaging the reputation of our leaders and their ministries, so we assist them in hiding their sins. Encouraging a lack of accountability enables abusers to target new victims; indeed, it actively protects sexual predators and furthers their impunity.

Like those who have gone before us, we may think we—rather than Christ—can determine what is good. We, as church communities, commit the same error the Israelites made in 1 Sam 8. We reject Jesus as king and appoint for ourselves new “kings” to do the work that we are called to do ourselves. Even when we choose a leader based on their heart, like David, we discover that seemingly gentle and humble people are capable of committing such heinous acts as sexual abuse (1 Sam 16:7, cf. Matt 11:29). When news breaks that one of our “sages in the way of Jesus had been a serial sexual abuser,”³² we must turn to the story of David, who used his power to take what was not rightfully his. Over and over, no matter how many “good” things an individual does, across time and culture, humanity demonstrates that “all have sinned” (Rom 3:23). Nevertheless, we hand other broken, human agents exceptional power by giving them our blind trust. We go where we are sent, following their instructions and never doubting their motivations. We assist them in covering up their sins to “protect” God’s reputation.

God does not need his reputation protected. He included all the horrible things his followers did in the Bible! The story of David and Bathsheba is not about being more modest, or about exhorting the weak to resist the strong, or about maintaining the illusion of a religious leader’s perfection. It is to remind us that even someone after God’s own heart, someone who seemingly did everything right, was not immune from the sins of humanity. It reminds us of our own sins, our own lust for power and significance. This story should lead us to the cross.

If we truly want to cultivate a culture in our church where women and men thrive as equals, we must stop blaming victims. We must listen when someone comes forward, believe that they are acting in good faith, and investigate. No matter how we perceive the accused, we must not dismiss charges flippantly. We need to hold people accountable for their own actions, instead of expecting women to take responsibility for the purity of the men around them. We need to stop cruel speculation of Bathsheba, which signals to victims, and potential victims, that the church is not a safe place.

Finally, we must stop demanding and expecting perfection from our leaders, which creates pressure to cover up every error. No one is without temptation, brokenness, and sin. Rather than attempting to hide these things, we must bring to light our own community’s frailty and transgressions. We must proclaim from the housetops that we are sinners and need a Savior. We must shout it from the rooftops that we all need Jesus, and he alone is our king.

Subscribe now

Notes

1. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ the 1995 NASB. A “literal” translation is best for making clear certain aspects of this article that are based on details of Hebrew wording.

2. Jamin Goggin and Kyle Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb (Thomas Nelson, 2021) 143.

3. Russell Moore, “This is the Southern Baptist Apocalypse,” CT (May 22, 2022).

4. See Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb; Erik Petrik, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, CT, podcast audio (June 2021), https://christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/rise-and-fall-of-mars-hill/; Jennifer McKinney, “Sects and Gender: Reaction and Resistance to Cultural Change,” Priscilla Papers 29/4 (Autumn 2015) 15–25; Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Tyndale Momentum, 2020).

5. Kyle Strobel, Introduction to Spiritual Theology and Formation class lecture, Talbot School of Theology (Fall 2021).

6. Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb, 152.

7. Brandon Cash, Hermeneutics and Bible Study Methods class lecture, Talbot School of Theology (Fall 2021).

8. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC 7 (Broadman & Holman, 1996) 17.

9. Ronald F. Youngblood, 1 and 2 Samuel, rev ed., EBC (Zondervan, 2009) 3.

10. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 9 (Doubleday, 1984) 288; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 364.

11. Zach Zienka, personal conversation, May 13, 2022.

12. McCarter, II Samuel, 290.

13. V. Philips Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, TOTC 8 (InterVarsity, 2020) 360.

14. Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, 361.

15. McCarter, II Samuel, 289.

16. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 364.

17. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (InterVarsity, 2008) 40; Herbert Lockyer, All the Women of the Bible (Zondervan, 1991) 35; Harold J. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History (Zondervan, 1962) 114; Ruth A. Tucker, Dynamic Women of the Bible (Baker, 2014) 170.

18. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, 41.

19. McCarter, II Samuel, 285.

20. Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, 361.

21. McCarter, II Samuel, 279.

22. Tucker, Dynamic Women, 171; Lockyer, All the Women, 35.

23. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115; Liz Curtis Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible (WaterBrook, 2007) 158; Kathy Collard Miller, Women of the Bible (Starburst, 1999) 216.

24. V. Philips Long, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan, 2009) 459; Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 2003) 540–41.

25. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 373.

26. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115–16.

27. McCarter, II Samuel, 288.

28. Miller, Women of the Bible, 216.

29. Lockyer, All the Women, 35.

30. Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible, 158.

31. Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible, 158; Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115; Miller, Women of the Bible, 216.

32. Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb, 143.

“This article first appeared in the [Autumn] [2022] issue of Priscilla Papers (www.cbeinternational.org).”

The Gift of Incarnation

Christmas is a season of giving, a time to reflect on Jesus’ gift of drawing near to us. Even though Jesus had the very highest status, he did not leverage his position for his own benefit. He gave up his power and status to draw near to humanity by becoming human. In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul instructed the believers to “have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!” (NIV)

Human power structures tend toward hierarchies. Those with higher status use their monetary and social capital to further their own interests. Jesus didn’t do that. Even though he was one with God, he did not act out of “selfish ambition” (Phil 2:3). No – in humility, he gave up power and status for the sake of lowly humanity. Being like Jesus is about giving up power and status for the sake of reconciliation, harmony, and unity with those of lower status. Philippians 2 opens with instructions for believers to be “like-minded” with Christ, to have “the same love” as Christ, to be “one in spirit and of one mind” with each other and with Christ (2:2). This means that to think like Christ, to love like Christ, to have the spirit and mind of Christ, we shouldn’t use our positions of status for our own selfish advantage.

Unfortunately, sometimes, there can be a temptation to rush past Christ’s humility and focus on his exaltation, skipping over Philippians 2:1-8 to focus on verses 9-11. In these verses, Jesus is exalted and praised as Lord. In fervor to exalt Christ, well-intentioned people use means that aren’t in line with the instructions provided at the beginning of the passage. It is easy to forget that it is God who does the exalting: “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name” (Phil 2:9). Believers are supposed to give up power, not chase after it.

Furthermore, following Jesus in humility is not about capitulating to the powerful and honoring those who already have influence. It’s a radical giving up of honor in order to physically draw near to those whom your social group expects you to avoid.

Subscribe now

Living in Humble Community

To live like Christ is to dwell in relationship with people from all walks of life by physically drawing near to those in different social classes. Our embodied presence with those of low status will enable us to get to know them, care about them, and better understand their needs. Philippians 2:3-4 instructs believers to “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” Believers should not act selfishly and pridefully. Instead of using positions of status for their own selfish advantage, they are called to be like Christ by humbling themselves and drawing near to people of lower social and economic standing.

When Jesus came to earth, he came in a physical human body and ministered to real people. His love was not detached and impersonal. He brought an embodied presence to people in the lowest strata of society. For me, being an upper-middle class, middle aged, white woman, there are many people to whom I could reach out. People who are unhoused or who lack food security, people who are new to the country and don’t speak English, people who have darker skin. But today I’d like to consider the disadvantaged social status of transgender people.

Christ-Like Giving up of Social Capital

Transgender people have a low social standing. Making up only a small percentage of the population, they are being targeted and demonized by corrupt people grasping for political power. During the 2024 election in the United States, millions of dollars were spent on ads that contained dehumanizing rhetoric against gender minorities. Some ads claimed that one candidate was “for they/them” and the other candidate was “for you.” This “us vs. them” rhetoric is a staple of propaganda. It is designed to use fear to unite the majority group against a common enemy, usually so that the one stoking the fear can seize or stay in power. Propaganda is a strong and effective drug. Messaging that fuels fear and disgust is immensely powerful, and continually wins out over thoughtful discourse.

Standing up for people in an out group is costly. Cultivating a relationship with someone who doesn’t fit the dominant cultural norm can bring social shame. But that’s what Jesus did on Earth and what he calls us to continue today. As we step into a new year, arms full with an abundance of social capital, may we approach everyone, and especially those who lack, with open hands of generosity.

I love the church. Ever since I asked Jesus into my heart as a very little girl, I’ve been enthusiastic to serve my church in any way possible. My senior year of high school, I started teaching my first Sunday School class – a group of 4^th grade girls. That was back in ’05, and I’ve been a Bible teacher ever since.

People like me are called “lay leaders.” Lay leaders are the people who teach children’s and adult’s Sunday school classes, coordinate events, go on missions trips, serve on deacon and business boards, and do pretty much any unpaid work around the church. There isn’t space here to list every ministry I’ve been involved with over the years, but I’m sure many of my readers know what it’s like to faithfully serve as an integral, but often unacknowledged, member of the church.

This lack of acknowledgement is particularly true for women. Especially in complementarian churches, women intentionally serve in the shadows. Male lay leaders rise to prominent positions such as elder and are respected and honored, while many female lay leaders obsess about making sure they never accidentally “exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12 NASB). I come from a soft complementarian (“soft comp”) church, where women are allowed to do some things, but not others. I’ve been called by the Holy Spirit to ministry since I was a young girl, so it’s been confusing and difficult over the years trying to figure out how, where, and when I can serve in the church. A lot of my energy has gone to making sure I’ve been acting under the authority of a man.

The Bible is “Clear”

Part of my obsession with perfectly following the rule not to “exercise authority over a man” was because I had been taught to read the Bible “plainly” because the Bible is “clear.” I thought I was supposed to just read a verse in English and take it at face value. 1 Timothy 2:12 (NASB), “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet,” was presented as the most important verse for ordering the body of believers. Shortly after 1 Timothy 2:12, verse 15 (NIV) says, “but women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” What does it mean that “women will be saved through childbearing”? Might my salvation be conditional? Do I have to give birth to be saved from eternal conscious torment in hell? These internalized worries plague many women, even if they say they believe intellectually that salvation is by grace, through faith. If verse 12 is supposed to be plain and clear in English and applicable to all time, why wouldn’t verse 15 a couple sentences later be the same? These anxieties percolate beneath the surface in many women’s souls.

Subscribe now

Speaking the Truth in Love

Another verse we have a tendency to latch on to is a phrase from Ephesians 4:15, “speaking the truth in love.” It’s common to apply this phrase to nonbelievers who we think aren’t living according to God’s design. But, in context, it’s clear that “truth in love” isn’t supposed to be directed towards outsiders. Rather, it is directed inwards, towards the church, the Body of Christ. Take a look at Ephesians 4:14-16:

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

In Ephesians 4, the focus is on the Body of Christ, and about ensuring the members of the church are not led astray by false doctrine. We are not supposed to impose our idea of “Truth” on the outside world. We are, however, supposed to speak up to each other when there has been doctrinal dishonesty. It’s not easy to push back on false doctrine, but it is important.

Some Truth in Love for Today’s Evangelical Church

There has been deceitful teaching in the evangelical church about the Doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture. The idea that we’re supposed to read the Bible “plainly” because the Bible is “clear” is false. This distorted definition of the Clarity of Scripture has been spread by people acting in bad faith for their own selfish gain. The Doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture says that Scripture should interpret Scripture, and that more clear Scripture should interpret less clear Scripture. The Doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture does not mean we’re supposed to just read a verse in English and take it at face value. It means that some passages are easier to interpret than others. It means that we are supposed to keep first things first, and prioritize passages that have a wider consensus as to their meaning. Those who teach that we should read 1 Timothy 2:12-15 with a “plain” reading that guides everything about how women exist in church have either been deceived or are acting deceitfully.

1 Timothy 2:12-15 is a particularly unclear passage. Complementarians and Egalitarians have long been at a stale mate as to the meaning of these verses. Complementarians have a tendency to say that we should follow the more strict interpretation, “just in case.” Just in case of what? Just in case we might lose our salvation? One of the core doctrines of faith is that salvation is by grace, through faith. If you believe in Jesus, you’re in. Taking 1 Timothy 2:15 to mean that women’s salvation is conditional and projecting that idea onto the previous three verses is dishonest. It puts second things above first things. It uses an unclear passage to negate a doctrine of first importance.

The Doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture says that we are supposed to use more clear passages to interpret less clear passages, not the other way around. We are supposed to use doctrines of first importance, such as salvation being by grace, through faith, to all who believe, to interpret unclear passages, not the other way around.

Ladies, your salvation is not conditional. You don’t have to hide in the shadows and worry about if you’ve accidentally “exercised authority” over a man. You don’t have to worry about the possibility of going to hell if you don’t bear children. Do you believe in Jesus? You’re in.

What’s the Good News?

We make a similar error with the phrase “inherit the kingdom of God” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. We see a list of vices that includes “men who have sex with men” and that they “will not inherit the kingdom of God” and get reeeeeally nervous. We want our loved ones to go to heaven. We want to evangelize them. But “you’ll go to hell if you’re in a gay relationship” isn’t good news. The Good News is that salvation is by grace, through faith, to anyone who believes in Jesus. Period.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, like 1 Timothy 2:12-15, are unclear verses. Interpreting “will not inherit the kingdom of God” to mean “go to hell” is dishonest and violates the Doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture. It elevates an unclear verse over a core doctrine of the faith. Salvation is by grace, through faith, to all who believe. Does this person believe in Jesus? Yes? Then they’re in.

Conclusion

I have a lot more to say on these topics, but for today, here’s the focus: issues that are hot topics that rely on verses that can be interpreted a variety of different ways are secondary issues. They are not salvation issues. We cannot elevate them above the core doctrine that salvation is by grace, through faith, to all who believe in Jesus. For the benefit of the church, we need to remind each other that we are secure in Christ.

Reflection

Today, take a moment to reflect:

Do I really believe, deep down, that salvation is by grace, through faith? Or do I feel like there are certain things I have to do or a certain type of person I have to be in order to be fully loved and accepted by God?

I was a lifelong member and volunteer Bible teacher at Fullerton Free Church until I came out as affirming in late 2024. I graduated with highest honors from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University with an M.A. Bible Exposition (Spring ’24). At Talbot, my studies specialized in reading the Bible biblically and related methodology. I believe that the most faithful, biblical interpretation of Scripture calls for full inclusion of all siblings of faith, including those in the LGBTQIA+ community, in all levels of the church.

Are you interested in learning more about biblical arguments for fully including all LGBTQIA+ siblings of faith in the life of the church? Become a free subscriber for essays laying out my views. If you would like to support my work with a paid subscription, I would appreciate it. I do not currently have plans to put any content behind a paywall, however, so you won’t miss out on anything by choosing the “free” tier.

Subscribe now

I’ll be posting about other things I’m working on as well, such as scholarly work and Bible Study lessons. My content will be tailored to different audience levels, so please stick around even if some of the content is too high- or low- level for you. I’ll be creating content and then modifying it for different audience levels, so please stick around!

You can also check out my website, which has a more thorough bio:

amandapence.com

Thanks for joining my Substack community! Enter your email below so you don’t miss new posts!