WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
I am coming to you with about 15 years of experience on the heart of the main topic today. But it does not mean I am correct. May the spirit guide and open up your hearts to the truth – and what my intentions are.
Okay, let’s continue on where we left off last week where Paul, after describing the downward spiral people take, who, after first knowing God through the invitations he presents, then become unthankful toward him, and vain, and then refuse to see His deity, and power, and as a result turn to idols, where God gives them up to their hearts own lusts, and described women who changed the natural/physical use of their body.
And now adds at verse 27:
Romans 1:28-32 3:1-2
Milk
November 22nd 2020
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Let’s first talk about the word likewise here, Because of it’s use it makes some believe that Paul is describing lesbianism in verse 26, because here in verse 27 he is describing homosexuality.
But the likewise here can simply mean,
”in the same manner “of changing the natural use of the body, men.”
The reason I point this out is because in connection to the idolatry described last week, it appears that Paul is better describing temple prostitution here among women – which could have included lesbianism but doesn’t have to.
Nevertheless, verse 26 does not firmly describe that single act among women.
But at 27 he goes on and says, turning his attention to men, “likewise,”
“also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
The Greek word men, used three times in this passage, is ar-hrane, and means males.
He passage would better read, “males with males,” working that which is unseemly, and not men or man with man.
Because the standard word in Greek for men is anthropos (used over 500 times in the New Testament and translated to men or man, and not arhrane, which is used only 7 times, some people have tried to argue that Paul is not describing adult homosexuality here, but man-boy relationships (or what we would call pedophilia).
My response to this is that whenever a male child is described in scripture the writers will amplify the description by referring to him as a man-child (“anthropos huios” or “arhrane huios”) and not just a man or male.
That is not the case here. Paul is plainly describing male to male (man to man) and NOT as a means to distinguish males of different ages, but males from females, which is usually the reason why arhrane is used in scripture instead of Anthropos – it is to distinguish between men and women.
I want to plainly address this because the full context of the verse describes two willing male adults, burning in lust for each other, engaging, even working that lust out in an free exchange, and not a predatory event like pedophilia.
Not more than a month ago I sat with a friend who is homosexual and loves the Lord who argued that this passage was not describing homosexuality.
It is a common theme among those seeking to justify homosexuality as if God in scripture.
The contextual argument is that the sin of pedophilia was rampant in the ancient cultures, which is true, and just as Paul may have contextually been describing women prostitutes (in association with pagan idolatry and not lesbianism) that he here too is talking about pedophilia, and not homosexuality, which too was rampant in the heathen world.
But it seems to me that if Paul – especially if Paul was describing pedophila by the Holy Spirit – he would have clearly described the actions here of verse 27 in clear terms and would have addressed the predatory nature that man-boy love displays.
But by refusing to describe one party of males here as a “child” tells me that Paul is plainly describing two willing male adults.
Finally, we note Pauls’ language is strictly emphatic as he says that the men “leaving the natural use of the woman” (children don’t often have established a natural use of the women in them when young) who “burned in their lust” (children being abuse by an adult don’t burn in their lust) one toward another, (children being preyed upon do not reciprocate in being abused back toward an abuser) “men working with men,” (and children do not work with men) in the deeds being done. Men to men engaging in homosexual relations completely fit Paul’s description here.
So, let’s begin with the subject by being clear – no workarounds and wordsmithing allowed:
This passage clearly has Paul describing the state of some male adults who have first known God, became unthankful, vain, changed God into an image, refused to see Him for who He is, and God let them go (or turned them over) to fulfill the lust of their hearts, and the result is some (some mind you) turned to homosexuality – this is what the passage is plainly talking about.
And just because a passage in the scripture does not accord with some believers lifestyles or views does not give us the license to alter its plain meaning.
So, stop it.
Changing the word to fit your life is one of the first steps on the slippery slope of misinterpretation.
The scripture is plain both referentially (like in the creation story of human beings) and in straight up text (like Leviticus 18:22 which says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Or Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
If you are a truth seeker, and if you want to know the heart of God toward homosexuality, the Bible is plain – it misses the mark. Point blank. Start by humbly accepting this in faith and then let the living God work with you.
(long beat)
That being said, in the context of these passages Paul uses homosexuality as a result of people first turning from God, then turning to idolatry and then going to homosexuality as a result.
This is the context of these passages in Romans, and as we shall see in a moment, the end result is not just going gay – and I cannot emphasize this enough – there are a lot of other results to this downward spiral and Paul will soon point them out.
So while this passage IS speaking of homosexuality, it is a form of homosexuality that is prefaced by ingratitude, pride, denying the power and glory of God, turning to idolatry and then ending at this sin (among others – as we will see).
So again Romans 1 is NOT a good set of passages to support the biblical refutation of homosexuality – Leviticus is much better.
And by appealing to Leviticus we automatically establish a better way to approach the subject. And that is, while a sin, it joins a plethora of other sins that automatically cause all of us to somehow miss the mark.
If you are homosexual, which I believe many people can be born that way, the approach is NOT to deny its sinfulness to God or to try and rewrite the scripture to make it suit your life, the approach, according to everything we have said last week and are saying today, is to thankfully turn to God for life, to humbly recognize him and his deity and power, to refuse to turn against Him and His word or to try and modify Him into a god more suitable to your liking, and to submit to what He says openly.
See, you are not special in your sin. Everyone on earth who seeks God is called to take this same approach, gay and straight alike. And the penchants I was born with are just as reprehensible to God as yours, but like you I am required to always look to God with humble gratitude and reliance upon him to receive me through His grace by faith.
This is what mitigates the Leviticus statements in the Law – His Grace. Remember,
“For the Law came through Moses, but grace and peace, came through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
As a homosexual, as a heterosexual, the lesson of Romans One is to not turn away from the living God but to be thankful and grateful and observant of Him and His existence without qualifications.
I don’t care what orientation that you are, all are responsible before their maker for how they respond to the evidence of His existence from the heart.
Because Christ paid for our failures, it is incumbent on anyone who loves and seeks God to always place their love and allegiance toward Him first, and love for neighbor second, and to humbly set our flesh at the back of the train.
I am convinced that the biggest problem with homosexuality, if fact the biggest problem on earth today, is not the fact that we all have sinful predilections – some even from birth, but that our pride and lack of thankfulness and gratitude for the living God turns us from seeking and being thankful to Him, but instead turns us to the P word – PRIDE.
That is the problem for all of us – but I might say today that it is the central problem of the homosexual community writ large.
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, (that word means shameful – and again, the word to describe an opposite attitude? Pride) “and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Getting straight to the heart of this last line, Paul is saying that the activities that these men engage in with each other will weaken their bodies and introduce ailments that are not produced in heterosexual relationships.
We all understand that fact of human beings, when we live fast and hard there is a toll; that those who approach life steadily, with measure, containing their passions and exiting life in the fast lane, age better, typically live longer, and are not subject to the same amount of physical, emotional or psychological breakdowns.
This is Paul’s point – that “in and through their bodies this audience will receive what they have sown.”
Now listen to what Paul reiterates here in verse 28:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, (That is the key to this, not their sin – their sin is the by-product, and it is what all of us are guilty of, the fact that these DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE that) God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
This clearly tells us as students of the scripture that the antidote to the cess-pool of our human tendencies toward sin is wanting to retain God in our knowing or knowledge. Keeping Him, as He really is, as pre-imminent in our minds and hearts, and not turning from humble gratitude toward His existence.
This is the first ingredient in the solution to addressing ourselves before our maker – He is God, we are not, and in deep humility and gratitude, we choose to always place him in the first and ultimate place in our hearts.
These that Paul is describing, like many in and around us today, “did not like to acknowledge God.” It was not because they weren’t capable of acknowledging him, but they chose to forsake him and what they knew about him, for their own passions and lusts.
And as a consequence of THIS CHOICE – not due to the end result but of THIS CHOICE , but as consequence, God gave them up to a reprobate mind.
Which means a mind destitute of judgment and spiritual discernment.
As a very brief aside, when I first got into ministry, I thought that I would want to have a really large church. One of the reasons was I thought that I could do more good with a large church than with a small one.
Man’s thinking.
After a while I could see that as a means to accomplish the call on my life, I would have to have a very small church, with very few responsibilities.
But what I also learned is that I have not lost out on the value and blessing of helping people – its just more on a one on one basis instead of on an institutional basis.
And from this really unique position I have been able to have some really long term engagement with people who struggle. Not just the hit and run meet with the pastor, get his wisdom on a Sunday afternoon, and say hello to each other later but literally decades long relationships with some people who really struggle in life.
Some with alcoholism or drug addiction. A number of men with sexual addictions, a few with pedophilia (male and female), spouses dying young, and people going to prison for some pretty lengthy terms of time.
I am telling you this because I have been able to see actual literal results in the lives of people that I have engaged with over the years and see the results when “they have sought to retain God in their knowledge” and those who have declined that opportunity.
The results are pretty much exactly what Paul is describing here – those who genuinely “seek to retain a knowledge of God within them” stay above water, and those who don’t slip below the surface into the dark waters below.
I cannot encourage all within the sound of my voice to always seek to retain a knowledge of God in your lives – no matter what you are, or have done, or want to do, or battle.
Never ever choose or allow yourselves to let Him and who He really is, go. He is good, and as a result He will let you have what you want the most in your life, and that can often be a very unfortunate thing.
Paul goes on to describe, in addition by the way, to homosexuality, what other things those who did not like to retain Him in themselves saying
“God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not becoming (of a person who chooses to have a knowledge of God in them) and he goes on to describe them in greater detail than just being homosexual but details twenty-two other ways in which such souls go, including (in verses 29 – 31)
29 Being filled with
1 all unrighteousness,
2 fornication,
3 wickedness,
4 covetousness,
5 maliciousness;
6 full of envy,
murder,
7 debate,
8 deceit,
9 malignity;
10 whisperers,
(30) 11 Backbiters,
12 haters of God,
13 despiteful,
14 proud,
15 boasters,
16 inventors of evil things,
17 disobedient to parents,
(31) 18 Without understanding,
19 treacherous,
20 without family love,
21 truce-breakerse,
22 unmerciful:
And he adds:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them
A better way to read this might be:
(RSV) Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
Does Paul not totally describe the heart and mind of those who have fully disengaged from God and a knowledge of Him while turning to their own will?
And in doing this he has established a case – human beings, without a presence of God in their lives, will go south – in some way or another.
That the Gentiles had “a moral sense,” or “were capable of knowing the will of God,” in this case, is clear from Romans 2:14-15 and from John 1 where he explains that all people have the light of Christ in them (conscience).
But the Jews were even less without excuse as they literally had the living God guiding and directing them. Nevertheless, Paul says
Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
Remember, even though what Paul is describing here applies today to human beings post the death and resurrection of Christ, he is describing the world and state of humanity prior to the establishment of the Good News.
And he is doing this to show the revolting nature human beings have toward the living God, thereby making a case for the need of some sort of a solution.
The solutions possible will be unfolded throughout the rest of the epistle but he has already broached the first possibility which is to let humankind, of their own accord, figure out if they will choose God in the face of knowing him via the post-it notes invites that he leaves for all of us.
From what Paul describes here this approach does not seem likely especially in light of the fact that God is the Supreme Deity of consummate holiness and power and that there is no having a relationship with him unless individuals are also holy.
This will move Paul to speak then about feasible means of justification, and sanctification with those ways either being by the Law or by faith.
And this brings us to chapter two where Paul now begins the next chapter with “Therefore,” (or as a result).
Now listen, the transition or shift that Paul makes here has never really made a lot of sense to me right out of the gate – I admit that here and now. We have done the work on what he has said thus far, but where he goes in the next eleven verses are hard to make stand on all four legs.
But of course, we proceed – may the Spirit guide as he writes:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Alright, back to verse 1 where Paul begins with THEREFORE, or in the Greek, “dio.”
1 Therefore,
Now, there has been no small amount of discussion on the meaning or focus of what Paul is doing here. After wracking my brain, I think I see – but my understanding is by no means certain.
The design of chapter two (and the following chapter three) appear to be to show that the Jews (who were under the law) were no less guilty than the Gentiles (who had no law) and that they needed the benefit of the same salvation which was afforded to the world through the Good News.
Paul appears to do this by showing that the Jews had greater light than the pagan Gentiles, and yet that they did the same things. However . . .
this did not stop Jew’s from accusing and condemning the Gentiles as being filthy and wicked all the while excusing themselves that they possessed the law and oracles of God, and were his chosen people.
This explanation sets the stage rather well for what he says here in the first verse and what he will continue to say through verse 11.
So, with that understanding, let’s re-read the first verse where he now says:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Let’s now read it from a more understandable translation, like the RSV, which says:
1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Paul was a converted Jew and in that context (and the fact that many of the believers in Rome were the same), he appears to be speaking to the attitude some (Jews under the Law) had toward others who were guilt of the behaviors he mentioned in chapter one.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that while Paul clearly explained that the path people take (described in chapter one as twenty-four deviant expressions) are ungodly, whatever they may be, nobody who does them, Jew included, had the right to condemn anyone else for the same.
This is a blanket condemnation on the hypocrisy of judging others – let me explain.
Sin is sin, and the laundry list that Paul describes in chapter 1 must be seen as a whole.
We find some support for this in the ordering of the sins that Paul lists, as he mixes them all up in a non-hierarchal order, listing murder in between envy and debate.
In other words, if someone is guilty of being envious, they have no right to judge someone who is guilt of murder – guilt is guilt before God, and all stand guilty and therefore alienated from Him.
It appears that Paul, when he says:
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things”
He is directly talking about Jew’s who converted, but the principle is applicable universally to all believers.
We do not judge others – meaning, in the truest sense of the word, (krino) that we do not condemn anyone as we too will always find ourselves guilty of missing some mark or another established by God.
What is just absolutely fascinating about Romans chapter one is that it is followed up by the first verse of chapter two.
I hear well meaning people assassinate homosexuals by appealing only to verses 26 and 27 of chapter one all the while ignoring the fact that Paul goes on and lists twenty-two other sins (those who turn from God commit) but perhaps most importantly, they completely ignore these follow-up passages where Paul clearly states that if you are guilty of missing the mark, you had better rethink condemning others for doing the same, otherwise, as Paul puts it,
“in passing judgment upon them you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things”
I have tried to use this thinking on believers who somehow have decided that they have the right to judge (in the condemning sense) other people.
When I try and point out the idea that only those without sin ought to cast the first stone, they respond with something like:
“Well, my sin is not as bad as theirs,” or “I am working on my sin where they have given in to it.”
But Paul points out that if we are guilty of anything we ought to refrain from condemning ANYONE EVER.
I would suggest that we all let God make those distinctions and resist the urge – unless we are without any sin.
Here, if the Gentiles were without excuse in their sins, much more would the Jew be without excuse who condemned them.
And so Paul writes
“thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
When Paul says, O Man, here it appears to be an attempt to apply the lesson to any audience, but perhaps a special attempt to avoid pointing directly to Jews who would have been extremely sensitive to such. And he adds:
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Where the English says, “But we are sure,” the Greek better means, “but we know,” and it seems to appeal to that somewhat universal idea most people bear about that there are consequences for our every act to a higher power, similar to the notion that all people have with them a knowledge of the living God within them at some point in their lives.
Of course, the Jews were especially educated with such knowledge but I maintain that all people bear the sensibility.
What sensibility?
“that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.”
That the judgment or condemnation of God will fall.
How? Paul says, according to the truth against them which commit such things.
Note here that after warning individuals against judging others that he does not skip over that it was a certainty that the judgment of God would fall on people “according to the truth.”
And there are two ways to understand this last line.
Tthe meaning would be “God will certainly judge and punish such deeds.”
But it seems to me that the other approach is what Paul meant which is while humans are not worthy or capable of righteous judgement, God is, and He will judge all according to the truth.
Again, I must wrap this reading up today with a brief reiteration. Paul was writing to a body of believers who expected the return of Christ to the earth to take them and heap judgment of those who rejected Him.
This is the context of these passages and to read them now in the same light but in a completely different scenario is to misapply the message.
Either God’s wrath was poured out or it was not. If it was, then believers today might consider understanding his assessment of every soul in a different light than that of wrath.
If he has not, and He is still angry, and is waiting to ultimately and finally pour his wrath out on the world, then read these passages as having direct actual literal application to you, and live accordingly.
Let’s open up to your comments and questions.
Prayer
