The last three posts, William Webb’s analysis of hermeneutical trajectories, Rowan Williams’s exposition of human sexuality, and Eugune Rogers’s exploration of biblical imaging, I have categorized under hermeneutics. While Webb’s book offers some explanation of the mechanics of hermeneutics, none of what I have written actually makes a hermeneutical argument using their texts. I have merely reported on their ideas. To do something more constructive I borrow again from Rogers. In his book Sexuality And The Chrisitan Body, Eugene Rogers does a formidable job of addressing body’s function and purpose in the life of the Christian community and I don’t think it’s overstated to say in the life of the Christian tradition.
Out of all the fascinating ideas that Rogers unpacks in the book I want to focus readers attention on one particular point that he makes in chapter 12. To contextualize the argument we need to do a bit of lexical work. In Romans 1, which we’ve already explored here, Paul says in v. 26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” The Greek word for natural is φυσικὴν, transliteration physiken. One can hear the word physical. In essence natural or nature. The Greek words for against nature are παρὰ φύσιν, transliteration para physin. Para is a preposition that has some contextual pliability. In its genitive form it can mean “from,” in its dative form it can mean “beside,” in its accusative form it can mean “beyond.” We are familiar with it as a loanword from Greek in our language in words like parallel, paragraph, paradox, paralysis, etc. In the case of Romans 1:26 it’s pared with physin which occurs a noun in the accusative feminine singular. Taken together against nature or beyond nature is probably a pretty faithful translation.
Romans, like so much of what Paul writes in his letters, is about navigating Jew/Gentile relationships in first century churches that are learning how to integrate with their respective cultural values. Of particular note are the Jewish laws and customs related circumcision, food laws, and sabbath regulations. Here it’s worth recalling that Peter Gomes pointed out in our discussion of Leviticus that the word abomination means “what the gentiles do.” I can’t stress enough how important cultural identity markers were for the Jewish community. The gentiles, in their integration of first century churches, brought with them their abominable behaviors. Interesting that in the many images Paul draws upon to announce to the Jews that God is doing the something radical with gentile inclusion he should cite Isaiah’s use of Sodom and Gomorrah.
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”
Here I’ll quote Rogers, “When Paul refers in Romans 9 to the story of Sodom, he does so for a very good reason. The Sodomites are Gentiles who have rejected God’s invitation to hospitality, and they misses the angels of instead of returning it.” (263) This reading of the sin of Sodom as inhospitality is well established (by Ezekiel for starters) and near universally accepted by scholars. This exegetical move then makes sense of God’s read of Roman’s 1. The gentiles are those who subtract from God’s hospitality and as a consequence God condemns them to act contrary to nature. But if we keep reading we make a startling discovery about God. God in Romans 11 according to Paul acts (in v. 24) contrary to nature παρὰ φύσιν. It’s the same Greek construction as founding Romans 1. Again I quote Rogers, “Romans 11 presents the reader with another of Paul’s rhetorical sting operations. It is a reversal of guilt by association. God becomes ‘guilty’ of acting contrary to nature by choosing solidarity with the Gentiles who identifying characteristic is to act contrary to nature.” (264)
The first time I read Rogers point I found it interesting if a little flimsy, but its sense strength has grown on me. As I mentioned a substantial amount of what Paul has written (undisputed and otherwise) is given to the topic of Jew/Gentile relationships. I’m also mindful of the work that happens in the book of Acts in the stories of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, Peter and Cornelius, and Paul at the Areopagus in which he identifies the unknown God. And central to all of this is the Jerusalem council in which the leadership of the early Church negotiated what was cultural necessary to identify as Christian. Said differently, one might argue that the entire work of the New Testament is to make good on God’s promise to Abraham through Jesus by including what is contrary to nature.