Romans 1 Part 2

Romans 1, the Context of Human Rebellion, and the Exchange of Truth for a Lie

Why is everybody sitting in the back today? There's all this room down front. Gotta pull the chairs out, gotta sit in the back. Can't sit down front. You might ask us a question or something. I'm not old enough to remember that old dial commercial.

Yeah, was this back in Black and White TV or something? Actually, I do remember Black and White. I am uncertain whether we have anyone recording, so I'm going to do a backup myself again. But last week we were in Romans chapter 1, and so we did not finish.

I expected to finish, but we did not finish our study in Romans chapter 1, so we will seek to do that this morning. We had gotten through, I believe, to verse 24, but I want to go back just a little bit and once again get our context beginning in verse 18.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.

Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. And the same way, also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind. God gave them over to a depraved mind. There we go. Are you going to let me do this? This is where technology fails you at times.

Evidently we have an editor here that does not want to go over to the next section of the text. Maybe it will do it. Now, God gave them over to a depraved mind, there we go, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice.

They are gossips, they are slanderers, haters of God, which could also be translated hated by God. Insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.

And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. And then just note, because remember, chapter and verse divisions are later innovations.

Therefore you have no excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things. And then he goes on to make application then to the Jewish people, who even though they possess the law, likewise continue to break the law at any rate.

The Suppression of Truth and the Exchange of Creator and Creation

Now, we had gotten to a transitionary text. We had looked at the suppression of the truth of God. We had noticed that man is unapologetus, without an apologetic, without an excuse, without a reason in verse 20.

We saw that this rebellion impacts all of man. It cannot in any way, shape or form be limited to just one aspect of man's being. We are created as a whole being and therefore we are affected mind, soul and body by this rebellion.

That there is a futility that has come into the thinking, the reasoning of man. There is a lack of divine light in the heart, replaced by foolish darkness. This results in a profession of being wise, saphoi.

You know philosophy, love of wisdom, professing to be sophists. They became instead morons, they became foolish. And then there is an exchange. They exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God, for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

And so this exchange is extremely important to recognize. I kept emphasizing last week the fact that there is no neutrality. There is no logical, spiritual or rational neutrality in regards to the existence of the one true God.

You either worship your creator or you exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for something else. And the only other thing you can exchange it for is something in creation. Yourself, images of men or birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

And we saw the connection that this has right back to the creation story in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. And so either one directs one's worship, one is either oriented toward one's creator, and hence has the proper relationship between the created and the creator.

Or you twist that relationship and you begin to give the created order, that which is to be given only to the creator himself. Now what this means, and the term that is used in scholarship is epistemology, but the way things are supposed to be, you have God in the center and man relates everything to the creator.

And so love is defined in light of who God is. Man himself is defined. Government is defined in regards to what God's will is. Law and purpose and morality and beauty and everything else. When man twists that relationship, then man is now in the center.

And even God becomes an article of knowledge with man defining who God is going to be. And this is the very essence of the situation we face in modern Western culture. And the fact that man places himself in the center and makes God an object of knowledge and actually puts God in the dock, to use C .S. Lewis's language, and judges him.

This is a part of what rebellion does. There is a necessary result to this. In verse 24, God gives them over. Paradidomi is the same term that is used of the betrayal of Jesus. The giving over of Jesus into the hands of sinful men.

And there is a necessary result. When man suppresses the knowledge of God and worships that which is not God, God does not remain inactive in this situation. And in fact, God is the subject of the verb.

And they are the object. And so there is an action on God's part in a giving them over in the lust of their heart to impurity. And so while the lust of their heart, which are now derived from this fallen nature, which is twisted in its orientation, a heart that is fallen is going to present twisted lusts and desires to the mind, to the heart, to the rational faculties.

We make decisions, we make actions based upon the desires that are presented to our will. This is why the idea of an autonomous will is a fundamental denial of Christian truth. Because it denies that we are fallen creatures.

If we are fallen creatures and if, as the Bible says, we are slaves of sin, why is that? It's because our natures are always presenting to our wills a set of desires that are based upon rebellion against God.

We do not have some morally neutral seat of desires that is presenting equally strong desires for godliness as well as ungodliness. You instead have being presented to our will just various shades of ungodliness.

And so when some people try to say, oh, no, no, no, we have our autonomous free will, then I don't think they really believe in original sin. I don't think they really believe in the effect of sin. They certainly don't believe what is found here in the pages of Scripture.

So God gives them over, in the lusts of their hearts, to impurity, uncleanness. Just as the desire of the regenerate heart is to be holy as he is holy, that is to be pure and clean, the lusts of the fallen heart, because of the lack of God's light, the darkness that must...

When you turn off the light, you don't have to turn on darkness. There is no need to generate darkness. Darkness is the lack of light. And so if they've rebelled against God, then their foolish hearts become darkened because the light of God's truth is no longer available to them in their rebellion.

And so their desire is for impurity so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. And so the wide range of physical behaviors that man manifests, so often resulting in the damage to man's lifespan and to the quality of man's life, flows from this rebellion and this fallenness.

And so he gives them over in the lusts of their hearts for... And why does he do so? Because they exchange the truth of God for the lie. And it's literally the lie. I mean, we'll say for a lie because that doesn't sound really good in English, but it has a definite article.

And once again, there's an exchange. They exchange the glory of God in verse 23. Now they exchange the truth of God. And you either have the truth of God or you have a lie from some other source. Again, one of the primary epistemological fallacies that is pounded into our skull from every source today in Western society is that this is extremism.

This is wrong. This is presenting a dichotomy that we can no longer live with. There is no such thing as the truth of God. No one can know the truth of God. You are arrogant if you claim to know the truth of God, if you claim that Jesus was the very embodiment of the truth of God.

That's arrogance. True humility is to deny that God has the capacity to actually communicate the truth about himself. That's what we are demanded to believe. You are not allowed to believe in a God anymore who can actually speak with clarity.

The only God that Western society will allow you to have is a mumbler. A mumbler who is contradictory to himself, says one thing to one group and one thing to another group, and all roads lead to Mount Fuji or whatever, all roads lead to Rome, whatever culture you want to put it in.

That's the only God that is allowable, a God that actually speaks with clarity. That is not allowed. There is an exchange of the truth of God for a lie. As a result, when you exchange the truth of God for a lie, then the object of your worship goes along with that.

If you don't know who the true God is anymore, you are going to worship that which matches your lusts and your desires. You are going to create gods that will allow you to fulfill the lusts of your heart.

And so, they worship and serve the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever. And so, there is no true worship of God. There is no true worship of God without a knowledge of who he is. The very essence of paganism was that the gods did not reveal themselves with clarity or that they would reveal themselves only through certain means of going through certain ceremonies and you can go up a little bit higher, another level, another level, another level.

And then, what was the idol that Paul focused upon in Athens? The unknown God, in case we miss somebody. In case there is actually a deity out there that just is, it's a deity but somehow hasn't managed to express itself to us, to reveal itself.

And he focuses upon that. So, finally, with that as a background, and I think it's important to have that background, to be able to explain that background to others. For this reason, God gave them over to pathe atemias, degrading, dishonoring passions.

Homosexual Behavior, Natural Function, and the Meaning of Romans 1

They are passions that by their desires and passions that by their very nature degrade and dishonor the creature who is made in the image of God. Now, some of you may recall seeing the debate that I did 11 years ago now with Barry Lynn, who, again, is on television a lot recently, on the subject of homosexuality.

And as I was asking him questions on this text, he had to borrow my Bible because he came to that debate without a Bible. And as did another opponent I debated a few years later, John Shelby Spong. But he was trying to get around this text with various extremely shallow and surface-level excuses.

And the audience especially found it rather humorous when I asked him, what are degrading passions? Because he was saying, Paul never says homosexuality is a sin. I said, okay, what's a degrading passion?

And the frustration in his voice and his mannerisms, which resulted in his threats of suing us, of course, later on, was rather obvious. There is a discussion here. You have verses 26 and 27 specifically and clearly make reference to homosexual behavior.

And they are described as atamias, desires that dishonor, degrading passions. For even their women, and there seems to be, some people would dispute this, but there seems to be, on Paul's part, both by the fact that he places the women first and then by the way he expresses this, strength in statement of, this is amazing.

In other words, verse 27, talking about male homosexuality, well, okay, that was known in the Old Testament, it was condemned in the Old Testament in a number of different passages in a number of different ways.

But it's almost like even the women, the women who should so naturally be inclined toward motherhood and toward the nurturing of life and toward some kind of a recognition of morality. For even their women exchanged the natural function for that which is paraphusen, against nature.

Now, the term, you don't have in verse 26 the same specificity you have in verse 27 where you have likewise the men abandoning the natural use of the woman. So you have specifically laid out in verse 27, we're talking about here the natural use of the woman, that is the complementary relationship of man and woman.

You don't have that exact same terminology used in verse 26, but it is implied. And that is that they have exchanged the natural use for that which is paraphusen. It is against nature. Now, very often what you're told is, well, phusis, nature, it can just refer to what is popular in a culture.

And that's true, there are some uses where it can, but whenever someone says such and such a word may mean this, always, always, always keep something in mind. I don't care who you're listening to, because I hear good Christian preachers massacre the original languages because of a desire to cram a certain belief into a text.

I don't care who it is. And you may have been exposed to people who teach you to do Bible study by getting out Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. And you just follow the word through the scriptures. Well, that might have some use, but I've seen it result in some really wacky conclusions.

Every word has what's called a semantic domain. A semantic domain. And so some words have a very narrow semantic domain. All right? And the meaning is going to be in here. There's, for example, the term lagas has a very large, it can mean a lot of different things.

It can mean just a matter, or a word, or a speech, or expression. And the range of meaning, a semantic domain, is much larger for that than maybe for operabaton, or something like that. Another term has a very narrow range.

Context, then, will tell you where in this range the meaning is in any given use. And so people jump over 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And they'll say, here is clearly a use of pusis that refers to cultural standards that we wouldn't necessarily hold to today.

So all Paul's saying here is that they're doing something against culture. But that ignores the specific usage of the term in the context it's being used. Paul is talking about creation here. He's talking about creative things.

He's already taken us back to animals, and to men, and animals, and four-footed creatures, and birds, and crawling things, and so on and so forth. He's taken us back to Genesis. And he talks about the natural use of the woman.

That's not the cultural use of the woman. That is the natural, that by nature. And so when you hear someone say, oh, well, that word just means this. Always, it should immediately make a red bell go off in your mind.

Because what a person who is careful should say, this term in this particular context bears this meaning. And then they better be able to back that up. And I have not found any of those in our culture today defending the perversion of the word of God at this point to be able to back things like that up.

All they can do is yell, scream, call you a homophobe, and cut you off. And that's how that works. And believe me, I've debated more than once on this subject. But even abnormal in English can be connected to a cultural thing rather than a creative thing.

It's something against the way God designed man to be. There's no question about it. Yes, ma 'am. Well, this is explaining what the degrading passions God has given them over to are. Here is Paul's first example of what have we seen in the preceding section?

The twisting of the creator-creation relationship. The twisting. They have exchanged the glory and the truth of God for a lie. And so what happens? The natural order is I'm created and I define myself in light of God's creative purposes for me.

So when God gives them over to degrading passions, what do they do? They take the created order and they twist it. They change it. So that their passions, which are supposed to be male-female, female-male, now become female-female and male-male.

This is the result of a person living in that sin and loving that sin and pursuing that sin. The result then becomes that they are given over to these lusts. These lusts are against nature. These lusts are against the very way that God has created us.

And they always result in the diminishment of life. Yes, sir? There is no indication that these individuals are repentant or anything of the type. But the important thing is you've got to realize there's a lot of different excuses that are offered as to what's actually going on here.

Very often what is said is, well, this has to do with pederasty. This has to do with the use of children as temple prostitutes in Rome. There's no evidence given of any of these things. Just the natural reading of the text is we're talking about degrading passions.

We're talking about women who abandon the natural use. They exchange. By the way, that's the same term that we saw before. So it's very, very important to see that. If you're going to exchange the truth of God for a lie, then God puts you in a position where you exchange the natural use for that which is unnatural, which results in the degrading and dishonoring of your body.

And so this is something that the women desire to do. And there was very little discussion of women in regards to this sin in the Old Testament, if any at all. But here it is made very, very clear. This is an exchanging of the natural function for that which is unnatural, especially in light of the fact that it cannot bring about life.

It can only bring about death. And in the same way, likewise, verse 27, and so we're not changing subjects here, likewise, in the same way, also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman. So that's why it's very clear exactly what's going on in verse 26.

You've got, and in the same way and in the specificity, the natural use of the woman. And then it's very important, and burned in their desire toward one another. Almost all of the excuses that are offered, and there's a plethora of them out there, and sometimes the same speaker will present multiple excuses that are self-contradictory.

So you'll hear one speaker saying that this was about rich men in Rome using child prostitutes. Were there rich men in Rome that used child prostitutes? Yes, there were. Is that what Paul's talking about here?

There's no evidence of that. It's just a bland argument and statement. But then they'll say later on, well this is actually about people who are not naturally homosexuals acting like they are. Now those are two different excuses.

And yet you'll hear the same speaker presenting them. In some books they'll present three, four, five different contradictory explanations. All in an attempt to make it look like no one really knows what this text is talking about.

And sadly, especially our younger generation of people who call themselves Christians, have started to embrace the idea that we don't know what it says. And therefore since we don't, and my gay friends are just so nice, is this really a hill to die on?

And that's what's going on. But it is very, very clear. You have the exchanging in verse 26, and now you have an abandoning of the natural use of the woman. And then please note, they burned in their desire toward one another.

Ais aleilus. That is a reflexive pronoun. You would not have that if what you had here was a rich older man using children who are in slavery. This is talking about the very relationship that pro-homosexual activists today say were unknown in the ancient world, and yet there's all sorts of evidence to the contrary.

But they'll tell you that. Because they'll never get challenged. Because who in the world, other than a few experts in the field, have ever done the reading to be able to answer their assertions? There are rebuttals to those things, but they recognize that when they're on CNN or Fox News, no one's ever going to have the time to even begin to rebut the falses.

But what they'll say is, they didn't know about mutual relationships. How else would you describe it? They burned in their desires for one another. That's not a child and some senior. That is two men burning in their desire toward one another.

Men with men, not men with boys. It uses the exact same term, arsonos, in both. Men with men committing indecent acts. And so recognizing that, some people say, well, this is only about people who are not naturally homosexual engaging in homosexual acts.

How else would you describe people who experience homosexual desire other than those who burn with desire for one another? Males. Males, that's right. It's a specific term. It's not mankind in general.

It's not anthropos. The majority of them who try to use language as an excuse don't actually read the language themselves anyways. But they also know that the vast majority of their audience can't check them out.

And so they'll throw these excuses out. And, hey, as long as people don't want to believe, there is the two parts of it. There has been the suppression, the twisting, and then the giving over to living out the resultant lust from the darkened heart is the abandoning of the natural use.

Yes, sir. See, Rich knows what I'm going to say before I say it. That's how he pulled that off. GBT. Yes. What you'll hear all the time is that the people who get the biggest platform are the people who are talking about monogamous, lifelong, loving relationships.

And yet every study that's done around the world, even by people who are completely in the camp of promoting this as a proper lifestyle, every study done around the world will tell you that maybe, at the good end, you might have 1 of male homosexuals who could ever go through their life in a monogamous state.

99 no way. And, in fact, 90 report a minimum of 10 sexual partners through their life. And 50 have more than 100 during their lives. So, you take the teeny, teeny, teeny, tiny minority and you make that the moral figurehead of the quagmire that exists behind it.

And yet that's what you see. Just turn on the television. Just turn on MSNBC or whatever else it is, and you know what? It's a lot worse outside the United States than it is here, if you can believe that.

Yes, sir. In comparison, straight across comparison, the average heterosexual male versus the average homosexual male, over 10 times the number of sexual partners of a homosexual male. On average. It's an amazing thing.

And so, there is a... It's important to understand what's being said here, because my goal is not so much to... There's lots of stats. I mean, one of the biggest ones that I'm trying to pursue are the life studies that have been done.

I've seen three different studies now, and they're wildly different from one another in their conclusions, which makes me really wonder. But I've seen three studies now, and part of the thing is, you cannot...

Because of political correctness in Western society, you cannot collect data on these things without being accused of bigotry. But when people try, by various means... Three different studies I've seen.

The one study traced an 11-year diminishment of average lifespan for the homosexual male or female. The second study was a 22-year diminishment. And the last study I saw was a 33-year diminishment of lifespan.

Now, if you just take the average, it's right in the middle. If you even take the best, you could smoke five packs a day and do better. Think about that. All of that stuff is very, very important. There's no question about it that it's not allowed to be discussed because of political correctness and an insane, self-destructive desire on the part of our culture to ignore the truth.

But what's important for us is that there are... Because of the Internet, because of the constant exposure that all of us have to media in various forms, whether it's on our phone, our iPad, our computer, television, radio...

Responding to Romans 1 in a Hostile Culture

Signs along the road anymore. Lies about Romans 1. Lies about 1 Corinthians 6 and 9. The term arsenokoites that is used there. Which Paul derives directly out of the Greek subjunct Leviticus 18 and 20.

Which means men lying in bed with men. And as my co-author of the book, The Same-Sex Controversy, said on a radio program we did many years ago on KPXQ. The term means that which men do with men in bed and that ain't eating crackers.

And yet people tell you, oh, it doesn't mean that. It has economic ramifications or all sorts of stuff like this. There's so much garbage. Certain articles, they'll go viral. And those articles are written by people like John Boswell, who wrote a huge book on homosexuality.

Most people end up going back to that. And right after Obama did what he did about gay marriage, there's this article going around talking about how the church for a thousand years had blessed gay marriages and all the rest of this stuff.

It's all based upon this guy's mistranslation of a couple simple texts. And no one's even allowed to point out, excuse me, yes, I know he was a professor at Harvard. But he was gay and he died of AIDS.

Do you think he might have been somewhat slightly biased in his presentation? Just maybe. You're not allowed to say that. You, homophobe. It's amazing. Yeah, and who can say, and there you go. There you go.

Just because you happen to be in the part of the culture that actually can continue the culture, you're in trouble. It's amazing. When we have opportunity, and our opportunities are shrinking, but when we have opportunity to actually respond, you are the ones who need to know these texts and be able to respond, because the people in your sphere of acquaintance, in your workplace, your school, your neighborhood, your circle of friends, you need to be able to respond.

And if you're uncomfortable with the text, then you're not likely to want to actually say something and give a clear testimony. Aside from all, look, every single one of us today, when this issue comes up, we have now been put in the position of pure defensiveness.

And we know that if we even begin to try to point to something that's against the flow of our culture today, not only could we be receiving those bad looks from people, we could be receiving that bad pink slip.

And not because we've done anything wrong. I mean, you can have a homosexual that's just pushing at everybody's face, and that's fine from our cultural perspective. If you dare say, you know, that's offensive to me as a Christian, you're out of here.

That's what's going on in our society today. And so, what's worse is when they come along and say, you're out of here because you're not even being a good Christian. Because I know lots of Christians who say there's nothing in the Bible about this at all.

That's where I think we don't have a choice. If someone says that to a believer, you've got to say, whoa, wait a minute. You're misrepresenting my God, you're misrepresenting the Gospel, and you're clearly misrepresenting the Scriptures.

Unfortunately, almost every conversation that takes place in our society today on a text like this lasts for about 90 seconds. It doesn't even last long enough for you to actually read the context. And you're almost always talking with someone who's never read the Book of Romans.

They have no idea where Paul's going. They have no idea why he raises this issue. They have no idea how it fits with the flow or the context. And so, if you have the opportunity, you know, the flight's long enough.

And they're not in the aisle seat, they're in the window seat. You're in the middle. You might as well make something good out of it. They can't get out of here. So, you need to know. And you can't just, in every situation, I don't care what the topic is.

This topic, deity of Christ, trinity, justification, whatever it might be. You control the conversation when you know the context. When you can trace the flow of thought to the text, you control the conversation.

So, we can't be proof-texters in the sense that, well, I know it's in Romans 1. Well, what's Romans 1? Well, I haven't looked at it for a while. When you can demonstrate that your interpretation flows directly out of the line of argument of the Apostle, that has a lot of power to it.

And frequently helps to suppress the emotions by which the majority of our fellow citizens think anymore. Not on the basis of truth, on the basis of emotion. But when you can demonstrate you've actually done your homework, you're comfortable with the text, and you can start a number of verses beforehand and follow the flow, that becomes a real value.

And we've had people contacting us because I've been doing this. I've been going through this and presenting this. And they're like, man, I really needed this because now I've been able to talk to my cousin and my nephew or my uncle or whatever else it is.

And it was amazing the difference that it made to be able to really go to the text. And it's just not your opinion versus my opinion. The text has a meaning. And it's not just up to me to fill in the meaning.

Oh, there is a... the recognition does exist. Let's be honest. Let's admit that the primary push for these things has nothing to do with the fact the whole world has become homosexual or that the whole world has actually bought these arguments.

It's political and it's cultural. It is a means of expressing rebellion against God. That's really what it is. It is European culture especially trying to throw off the shackles of the old ways of thinking for something new.

And, unfortunately, the something new involves total degradation of the society. Well, we're out of time. And so we will pick up next time around. Let's close Word of Prayer. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for this opportunity and the freedom we still have yet to discuss these things.

Lord, help us never to take your truth and use it as a club. But may we be used in your hand as instruments of healing, of bringing repentance. Yes, Lord, if necessary of an announcement of judgment as well.

But always, Lord, as individuals who have ourselves been redeemed from the very depth of sin. We thank you for your Word that you have preserved it for us and that it is clear. And, Lord, we would pray that as we even go into worship now, as we open your Word once again, that you would be with us to honor and glorify your own name in all that takes place.

We pray in Christ's name.