#29. Romans 1:26 – No, it’s Not All About Sex. Would You Stop it, you Dirty-Minded Rapscallion?? (Indignation Series, Part VIII)

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

(To Sam, who is like a sister to me)

Therefore…

It’s all connected; see what I mean?

God gives them over to dishonorable passions. For their females, besides, alter the natural use into that which is beside nature.

After giving us over to the dishonoring of our bodies, in the desires of our hearts, God then gives us over to dishonorable passions. This verse is typically used as a consideration of sexual immorality, but I would like to briefly contest this view for a few different reasons.

First, sex has not been considered in any capacity in this argument thus far (save maybe a broad sense for terms like “idolatry,” which included temple prostitution at the time, or “unrighteousness,” in reference to the few sexually immoral actions referenced in the Mosaic Law.) As such, we, either from our modern-day perspective, or from the perspective of the Roman believer, have no reason to implant the notion of sexuality, here, save some indirect speculation.

Second, “passion” does not carry a sexual implication in the oldest inspired Greek manuscripts. The word employed here is pathos. Any 10^th grade English graduate can tell you that there are three aspects of a well-formulated argument: ethos (character,) pathos (emotion,) and logos (logic.) These words are, of course, common Greek terms, and, up until 1611, had consistently been translated as “emotion.” This does not secretly imply “sexuality,” for, of course, many have emotional experiences outside of sex.

This leads me to my final point: the adjective “dishonorable,” or atimia in Greek, suffers heavily from KJV-misinterpretation-syndrome. It suffers badly. Look, three times they translate atimia as “dishonor,” in Rom. 9:21, 1 Cor. 15:43, and 2 Cor. 3:8. Yes, in this very same letter, they change the word to “dishonor!” Unbelievable! Haters will tell me that “the context is different,” but is it really? Where else in this clause are we given any sort of indication that we must consider the next clause with a sexual lens? These attributes in Romans 1 are the very attributes of the vessel of dishonor referenced in Rom. 9 (how else would one describe a vessel of dishonor??)   Unless you would tell me that Romans 9 also somehow carries themes of sexual impurity (spoiler alert: it doesn’t,) then there is merit to a different meaning for the term.

Atimia, in Greek, carries the elements “UN-VALUED.” This word does not mean or indicate anything sexual, and may be used apart from sexual contexts without losing its force. Honestly, the more I look at God’s employed words, as opposed to man’s reasoning about them, I find that man gets pretty crafty at shifting the tone of the passage with careful, manipulative wording. In the interpretations made in the English language, man is “lusting,” “dishonoring the body,” and “keeping dishonorable passions.” No wonder most people around us today assume that God hates sex! From a glossy reading of the passage, one could easily get the idea that God loathes the crack of a whip in bed, or any sort of taboo roleplay! Yet when we consider the words actually used here (one of which is still commonly used by the English-speaking populace apart from sexual immorality,) we find a noticeable lack of raunchy commentary. While it’s certainly possible to claim that sex is, at least, alluded to in the passage thanks to Paul’s broad terminology, it’s highly unlikely that we will find much value if we forcefully limit ourselves to “sex” when considering this passage.

Okay, so… what do we consider?

Well, let’s consider Paul’s example of a “dishonorable passion.” In the passage, Paul’s first listed “dishonorable passion” is that women alter the natural use into that which is beside nature. By far the most common interpretation of this passage is that women no longer seek to make babies. The main rationale is that some women get abortions today, most men and women have sex recreationally, many of us use birth control, and factors such as these allegedly contribute to Paul’s point. But the time aspect of the verse is not considered – all of Romans is pre-supposed, not unfounded. Paul did not write in the letter’s margins to “please stand by until second wave feminism has firmly embedded itself into our society in the 20^th century for this point to become accurate.” He is writing proven statements – not unproven statements.

What is the “natural” use of a woman? To learn the answer to this, we must observe the creation of women, when she is at her most natural. Please observe Gen. 2:18:

Yahweh Elohim said: It is not good for the human to be alone by himself.

Throughout all of Genesis 1, we read that God perceives the objects that He creates as “good” (1:3, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.) Yet halfway through Genesis 2, we find the very first thing in all of scripture that God says is not good. Clearly, loneliness and isolation is an issue of deep importance to God (as we will observe throughout Romans.) What’s His solution? Gen. 2:18b, 21-24–

I shall make for him a helper as his complement… Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: this time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman, for this was taken from her man.

Therefore a man shall forsake his father and his mother; he will cling to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh.

It is here where we find the true nature of woman. She does not exist to pump out babies – this is called objectification. While women have this ability, it is not their primary function, and the notion that women must conform to such an idea is (and has been) fallacious reasoning.

The truth is that women are helpers. They help men, for men cannot help themselves. Yes, yes, I know that sounds bad, because the immediate cry from some liberal-minded folk is that I’m claiming that women need to serve men. But that implication is utterly abhorrent to me, and I’m just as repulsed by it as you are. When I say, “women are helpers,” I’m saying, “men need help.” We both just read the same passage; it is not the woman who lost a vital aspect of her character, here – it’s the man. The man lost the vital organ by which God made the woman. Adam recognized it immediately – “Hey, that’s my own flesh!” This led him to care for Eve – just as he would care for himself (this aspect will be more important when we reach Rom. 1:27,) while Eve, having just been created, looked to Adam to make sense of her surroundings (I wouldn’t be surprised if this event inaugurated the first game of “21 questions.”)

So, Adam provided information (I imagine he said something like, “Hey, we’re in a garden, we’re created by this Yahweh, He’s pretty cool, we can eat all this stuff, and we can’t eat that one tree or we’ll begin to die. Also, I’m going to watch over you – not because I’m a chauvinist pig, or because I think you couldn’t do things, because I will ask you to help me with quite a few things, but because I see you as if you were a part of me, and as such I’m dedicated to making your life way easier while you sustain this “loneliness” of mine that this Yahweh doesn’t like.”) Eve, in looking toward and bonding with her man, and also recognizing him as her “own flesh,” sought to help him where he lacked (that organ he’s missing, as we’ll consider much later, removed much of Adam’s ability to apprehend the emotional nuance of life, which is, unsurprisingly, Eve’s specialty.)

With these verses from Genesis 2, we have a proper scriptural declaration concerning the natural use of a female. Whether you fully agree with my stylized interpretation or not, it is still a direct statement from the text that the God of scripture makes woman as man’s helper, a complement (a beautiful term meaning “a person or thing that completes another person or thing.”) It is this which has been altered – this aspect of woman which had been shunned in more than one way by every culture up until that point.

Examples? I’m full of them. One of the oldest known human civilizations, the Sumerians, were also one of the first to treat women as property instead of as their own flesh. Both legally and economically, a woman’s agency was severely limited. Simply put, their place was not a pedestal, as a complement’s place, but beneath the man, as a subordinate’s place.

This is a running theme throughout our entire history. Egyptian women had more rights, for example, but only because their extra rights were considered pitifully low on the totem pole in comparison to the godlike Pharoahs, with divine rights to rule. The Assyrian women had fewer rights, and were told how to dress, who to marry, where to go, and what to do. There were even some civilizations, such as the Phoenician Empire, who were so heavily focused on commerce and religious principles that family ideals were often overlooked, thus ditching the male/female dynamic altogether!

There are two more major examples I can provide. The first can be found in Paul’s greatest example: the Jewish community themselves! Mini rant time. The common belief is that the Mosaic law undermines or devalues a woman’s place on the earth, objectifying and limiting their freedoms. I don’t agree with this at all, given the purpose of the law (which we will get to,) as well as the quality of the law. The law is patriarchal, for sure – as in, it differentiates between men and women quite often, prioritizing the different strengths, abilities, and roles of mankind. Women were given charges that men were not able or allowed to follow (Lev. 12:2-5, 15:19-24, Deut. 22:13-21,) while men were given charges that women were not able or allowed to follow (Gen. 17:10-14, Ex. 21:9, Deut. 20:1-9.)

This does not, however, mean that either group, on paper, would be oppressed under the Mosaic law. “Patriarchy” and “oppression” are not interchangeable.

Why, then, are the Israelites one of the major examples of Paul’s statement in Rom. 1:26? Because the Israelites would abuse the patriarchy – it is not the law that is fundamentally broken, but Sin that has broken man, remember? Sin is our oppressor – not a patriarchy. If Sin were nonexistent, then the patriarchy set up by the Mosaic law would be run flawlessly by the Israelites. It has been the irreverence and injustice which has plagued mankind’s ability to create a proper hierarchy which would play to the strengths and values of both genders without sacrificing their individuality. The fact that Sin exists dooms any and all forms of government supplied by man, as history has shown that we are unable to self-govern, nor are we able to fully comply with any ruleset (no matter how strict the penalty, or how fervent the spirit.)

Okay, mini rant over! The second major example that proves Rom. 1:26 is America. Goodness, look at America. Ask a new woman every day – does she believe that her natural use is to help her dolt of a man? Does she think her purpose is to be the beating heart of the race? Does she feel appreciated when she does give in to this natural instinct?

Simply put, in both cultures present before and after the time of Paul’s writing, the natural use of the female is set aside. Man sets it aside in favor of physical dominance over woman, and woman sets it aside in distrust of the dominating man who undoubtedly still needs her help. This is, I believe, far closer to Paul’s original thought, and aligns closer to the original Greek than man’s horny interpretations. While sexuality certainly plays a key role in this age-long tragedy between men and women, it is not the core of the issue. The issue runs much deeper – back to Rom. 1:18, where we read that these interpersonal issues between the two genders are caused, relatively, by the irreverence and unrighteousness toward God, perpetually corrupting our bodies.

Yes, it’s really this simple; Paul is not taking an extreme feminist perspective, as most modern-day feminists believe that men and women operate independently of each other, when our daily instincts often display the opposite. Men and women need and rely on each other for support – what one has, the other lacks. But Paul is taking a firm stance against this objectification of women. They are not considered as natural, beautiful individuals instinctively designed for companionship (why do you think so many of them gab so much?) Instead, they are perceived as sex dolls with periods.

No, it doesn’t end here. We must also remember that Romans 1:26 is building off of Romans 1:23-25. As we’ve studied, the previous verses concern us with idolatry. This means that we are not only reading of the setting aside of a woman’s natural use, but bearing witness to the idolatry of these cultures. My favorite example of this idolatry is found throughout Greek mythology, and I find this fitting for our discussion to both “Greek and barbarian.” The Greek god Uranus, considered the oldest god of “the sky,” gave birth to many gods and titans with the Greek goddess of earth “Gaia.” Uranus was terrible to his titan sons, and this already indicates to us a terrible difference between the Greek gods’ forefather, and The Supreme, Jesus Christ’s Father. The Greek god Uranus did not have plans for his titan children, whom he deemed unworthy of life, keeping them trapped within the earth. This, of course, led to the rebellion of the Titan Cronus, who snuck into his father’s “chambers” (wherever that would be) and chopped his dick off!

No, I’m not kidding.

This lack of love breeded more lack of love from his offspring. His genitals fell into the sea (don’t ask me which one, please, because I don’t know,) which somehow birthed the goddess of love and beauty. So… to clarify… according to Theogony, by the man Hesiod, a man-like god’s genitals being dipped in water led to… the birth of love.

Yes, it sounds like this was written by a man.

Oh, yeah, the plot, unlike my dad’s hair, thickens exponentially. Cronus ends up screwing his sister, giving birth to the plethora of gods we read of today: Poseidon, Hades, Zeus, Hera, Hestia, and Demeter. Cronus went on to literally eat his children (yes,) save for Zeus, who was hidden by his mother until he could come back and kill Cronus, freeing his brothers and sisters in order to wage war on Cronus. This war ended with Zeus’ rule on Mount Olympus, where he then “took control” of all weather patterns. Zeus, like his father, marries his sister, whilst screwing every other woman he could find (Zeus was rather horny; you must look into this if you don’t already know.)

Do you see it? War? Incest? Infidelity? These distinctly human traits were projected onto the gods that these Greeks worshipped. The younger gods did not inherit the throne, and the older gods did not give it. The younger gods usurped the throne, and the older gods murdered and constrained in their ploys to keep it. These gods were the scum of them all! Yet to the Greeks, this great display of power was righteous!

In other words, these “dishonorable passions” were excused through their idolatry. Not excused by the One God, of course, but by fellow men. In comparison to these powerful gods, human irreverence looked like a weak replication of those “powers,” and could thus be more easily rationalized and even excused. And, within the confines of the example here in Rom. 1:26, this attitude that “sin” was more “powerful” enabled the women (and men, in 1:27) to grow swell-headed and prideful, setting aside the natural use of the female. Women preferred man’s power, and men preferred subjecting them for personal gain as opposed to fervently loving them. They believed that, in their displays of power, they earned a prize.

Nowadays, things are much brighter!

(That was a joke)

This attitude, left unchecked, has led to the horrific emotional backlash in today’s communities. Dishonorable passions, such as the subjection of women Paul mentions here, was still commonplace not one century ago, and still stands as a notable point of contention today (today it’s so bad that many don’t even know how to define a woman, so make of that what you will.) Modern Christendom still makes God out to be a fierce, vindictive monster – one who admits the torture of most of humanity in a furnace, while saving a small fraction, placing everyone at different levels of advantage, and carefully analyzing their moves like a hawk. With the doctrines of free will and eternal torment, Christ comes off more as an effeminate lobbyist, arguing with God to keep Him from unleashing turmoil on everyone – just like Zeus would do (see the story of Zeus and Prometheus.)

Human traits are projected onto the gods we worship. I would argue, however, that today, humanity is more deceptive than ever before, making their charge even worse than the Greeks. People today attribute this ignorance toward true femininity and masculinity onto God. The Pope does it today with the woke nonsense (making men out to be more like women,) and the average preacher acts as though God seeks for men to control a woman’s emotion (making women out to be more like men.)

What does this all mean? Well, it simply means that Paul’s words are still true, in a greater and more sinister way than they ever were – devolving and re-organizing man and woman’s base instincts, confusing the race on both ends. In traditional roles, women have not been treated properly by men. And in “deconstructed” roles, women have not been treated properly by men. Our race, collectively, cannot escape this trend. We have not been able to, and will not be able to, of our own accord. And, its root is found in idolatry – the worship of pagan gods (including the one that assembles every Sunday on every other street corner,) with a healthy dose of irreverence to the true God, Who had already clearly spoken the importance, value, and beauty of His female gender two chapters into His word.

- GerudoKing