Tackling Tradition 78: Cephas In Galatians

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus •along with me. 2  •I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3  But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4  Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5  to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6  And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were •makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7  •On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised...

Pop Quiz! Romans 1:18 - 32

 Specifically what theory am I deploying?

Which words did I “‘make up?”

Answer these questions: According to Romans 1:18 - 32 …

1. What is the purpose of the created order?

To testify to God’s design for human sexuality so we can do sexual ethics? OR Is its purpose to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority as the basis for all ethics.

2. How did the nations wind up with idols with sexual characteristics? By looking to God’s image & authority or by looking to their own & others?

3. Does God indict humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others or for failing to look at the human image & understanding & believing that the human image is heteronormative?

4. Apropos 3, since the text indicts humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others, how can “natural” mean “heteronormative” if God has no sexual characteristics? How can God indict some people for refusing to understand & believe in heteronormativity by way of rejecting God’s created design expressed via human anatomy, physiology, &/or psychology while indicting us all for reasoning from the human image to worship & sexual ethics?

The answer is: Heteronormativity isn’t the subject of 1:26 - 27, because if so, you have to divorce worship ethics (theology about God’s image) from sexual ethics (theology about the human image) in a text that binds them together. God’s image — not ours — is the source of worship & sexual ethics, & since He has no sexual characteristics, “natural” has nothing to do with heteronormativity. If so, then God has sexual attributes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

Covenant Theology In Outline Form (Part 11)