#30. Romans 1:27 – Now We Get into Some Sex, You Dirty-Minded Rapscallion (Indignation Series, Part IX)

 Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

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

Therefore God gives them over to dishonorable passions. For their females, besides, alter the natural use into that which is beside nature. Likewise also the males, besides, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their craving for one another, males with males effecting indecency, and getting back in themselves the retribution of their deception which must be.

You’re still on this whole “sex” thing? God likes sex, okay? He made sex. Sex is, arguably, one of the highest physical blessings provided to mankind: so deep, in fact, that the greatest exposition concerning sex ever written can be found in the Bible itself – The Song of Solomon (CLV: “Song of Songs.”)

But this isn’t about that. To most, this is the big one, right? This is the verse where the church crowd thinks, “Well, it can’t get any clearer than that, so we need to shun all homosexuality!” This, of course, isolates the very group that these Christians are supposedly seeking to save (subject, really.) We are, thankfully, living in a world where this is less of an issue than prior generations, but the topic still comes up among the hardcore scripture nerds, so I feel obligated to consider this.

Let me begin my consideration, however, by recalling three critical aspects to the passage that we’ve been considering: first, it is God Who gives us over to these human aspects. This does not say that God “allows” something to happen because of something you did, but that God is active – He is willfully giving you an experience of dishonorable passions in irreverence that He created (Isaiah 45:7, cry about it.) It must be kept in mind that the righteous God is the One causing these experiences. This way, if you still think that homosexuality as a whole is itself a sin, then you will at least be able to set aside these relative moral differences, and accept that the very Creator of our universe has simply made a significant portion of men to become more fond of their own gender.

Second, we must remember that this portion of the letter is a backdrop by which the evangel is presented and able to shine. God provides a perfect, nuanced take of the gender roles He assigns. He assigns different roles with different struggles per gender (neither of which are greater or lesser than the other) in order to convey His evangel, and highlight the central themes of the story He’s telling through Christ. This does not mean that He hates or afflicts gay people personally (Lam. 3:31-33,) or that He would refuse to save them because of their conduct (Col. 1:20, 1 Tim. 4:10, 1 Tim. 6:13.)

And third, we must keep the fact of idolatry in mind throughout this passage. God is not merely speaking of a fondness or love for another individual, but veneration, or worship (and no, not the sexy foreplay kind of worship between lovers, but the truly revolting kind.) To this very day, entering a woman who represents a god or deity is designed to join one spiritually to that god. It was far more prevalent in many cultures in Paul’s day, and God repeatedly stands against this practice in the Hebrew scriptures (Lev. 20:2, 6, Num. 25:1-9, Deut. 23:17-18, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 10:8, Gal. 5:19.) Nowadays, it is typically found in the secret parties of the top one percentile. This practice, in God’s story, has always been sourced in idolatry (Amos 2:7-8, Ezek. 16:15-17, 23:37.) Here, we see the same pattern: idolatrous worship of man leads to prostitution among man – a connection God Himself makes in 1 Kings 14:24.

Man, this got deep pretty quickly. I didn’t think we’d cover such a hot topic so early in the letter. How did we get here? In the last article, I criticized the fact that many Christians center around sex in Romans 1:26, when it is not the central focus of that verse. Here, however, sex seems to be front and center. Why? What changed?

Well, simply, the verse changed. Paul’s issue in the previous verse is that “women altered their natural use into that which is beside nature.” Males, of course, do likewise, but the fact that Paul expressly points out that both men and women can set aside a woman’s natural use should show us that this is not an explicitly “sexual” thought. Moreover, we know it’s not explicitly sexual because Paul says, “Likewise also the males, besides!” We covered this word “besides” back in Romans 1:20! It is in reference to an additional aspect of the topic in consideration! The additional point here carries a sexual implication that the previous verse did not. Remember that, per Rom. 1:26, we are dealing with “dishonorable emotions,” which may include, but is not limited to sex.

With that said, we can now cover this additional point, which had not previously been mentioned (or God would have no need to mention it here, considering his argumentative structure.) It must be considered as an additional point, because, though all of us, to some extent, misapprehend the woman’s natural use and hardly ever agree on it (and thus set it aside,) the same cannot be said for homosexuality. Not all commit this act, or even really care about it. God is citing it as an example of a dishonorable passion, for there are many more dishonorable passions that God considers in the Old Testament. Paul is speaking broadly, and the Hebrew scriptures are his proof for this portion of the argument (hence the presuppositional nature of the argument.)

So! The additional point is that some men (some, not all, because “all” is not used, here,) upon leaving the natural use of the female, become inflamed in their craving for one another. These words “were inflamed” is one inflected word in Greek: ekkaiotheman, or “WERE-OUT-BURNED.”

The first thing that stands out to me is the passive tense of the word. Man is affirmatively stated here to be the recipient of this inflammation – not the source. This is in line with Paul’s statements all throughout this portion of the letter, in 1:21 (“vain were they made,”) 22 (“they are made stupid”,) 24, and 26 (“God gives them over.”)

I also can’t help but notice that to be “inflamed” in English is to be “OUT-BURNED” in Greek. The internal emotion, the dishonorable passion, is manifested externally – an outward burning – in their craving for other men. This term ‘craving,’ orexis, carries the elements “EXTENDing.” This term is also interpreted as “lust” in the KJV, which is just damn annoying (darned annoying, for Christians and Brokeback Mountain fans.) The force of the term indicates something stronger than a “desire.” It is the “desire” (1:24) rooted in “emotion” (1:26) which creates a craving. The flesh no longer wants, but needs, the other man, in order to feel satisfied (I’m pretty sure gay people can verify this for me.) This is, literally, to extend one’s emotions outwardly, in need.

Yes, you could argue that “extension” here is a play on the male’s phallus. God’s issue with gay sex is found in penetration, specifically: the penetration of the wrong thing into the wrong hole. Other than that, God gives so few restrictions on sexual behavior that I can actually briefly list every sexual sin, provided in Leviticus 18 and 20, as well as Deuteronomy:

1.     With a male you shall not lie as bedding with a woman. This is an abhorrence (Lev. 18:22, 20:13.)

2.     You shall not give your semen to an animal, nor should a woman be taken by an animal. This is foolish (Lev. 18:23, 20:15-16.)

3.     Don’t commit temple prostitution (i.e. give your semen to Moloch) (Lev. 20:2,) and don’t turn to other mediums or wizards to commit prostitution (Lev. 20:6)

4.     Adultery (Lev. 20:10)

5.     Incest: sleeping with your mom (Lev. 20:11,) your daughter-in-law (20:12), a woman and her mother at the same time (20:14,) your sister (20:17,) your aunt (20:20,) or your sister-in-law (20:21)

6.     Even exposing a woman on her period, let alone entering her (Lev. 20:18,)

7.     Rape (Deut. 22:28-29)

All of these principles carry a common theme: penetration. For example: notice that two females lying together is not taken away by God? He never once says, “Oh, and lesbian sex.” While there may have been (and, today, definitely are) tools women used for penetration, there is definitively no mention of this act in the very laws that recognize sin (Rom. 3:20.)

In contrast, men lying with other men is a defilement, because of the penetrative aspect. Being penetrated is representative of being joined with another, which lines right up with Paul’s point in the passage from a social perspective: a woman’s natural use, being her place as the complement of man, is set aside by both men and women. Yet some men, in addition to this, will physically set aside the woman’s natural use by penetrating each other as opposed to the complement that God created. It is, specifically, the penetration which is a defilement of the woman, as her place as the helper is not only set aside, but logistically abhorred by the act.

Now, look, if you’re gay and you’re reading this, and you’re getting mad or believe I’m being intolerant, I would like to take a break and introduce myself to you: hi! I’m Stephen. I’m sorry. I know you don’t have some devilish intention by being gay. I mean, look, we’re looking at a text where my God specifically said that He makes you gay. From my human point of view, what am I supposed to do with that? If God shows that He sustains your inflamed cravings, then why should I be sticking my nose into your business?

Personally, I just don’t care. I much prefer other scriptural topics. I’m not writing any of this to “reform” you or any such nonsense, nor am I requesting you change by any means. We’re living in an era where God is at peace with all of humanity, and in fact chooses the worst of us to be believers. In other words: no condemnation here. Not from me, and not from Paul. These are factual statements – not blind, pointed social criticisms. I’m only writing about this because it’s an integral part to Paul’s idolatry argument, and man’s pride in self are exemplified in this manner.

What? Look, I know you might not see it that way, but it’s just the way God set this up. The gay community enforces a “pride” month, joins “pride” parades, run political movements, and push social agendas to make their fleshly pleasures known to others regularly – direct proclamations of pride in one’s own sexual preference. While the intention of these crowds may more or less be an expression of joy at one’s own flesh, as well as a middle finger to the unhealthy repression/hypocrisy of the Christian movements which shaped the society we’ve grown up in, the fact still remains that this is, at its core, pride in the physical pleasures of a decaying, dying flesh. Praising this flesh, is, as God points out, a dishonorable passion, because the two – “flesh” and “God” – are irreconcilable. One is marred with sin, and the Other is not. God will never conciliate Himself to Death, for Death is Rebellion itself, and God is not rebellious (indicated by His harmonious and fruitful relationship with His Son and their will for the universe.)

Now, before you go all Whoopi Goldberg on me and claim that I’m spreading “hate speech” and committing “micro-aggressions,” I will again re-affirm that I am not advocating for some anti-civil rights group, and believe that, even as a believer, if one is gay, or regularly engages in homoerotic acts, that they are not “separated” from God, or even at odds with Him. I understand that it’s hard for you to believe me on this, especially when you are directly reading this early on that God deems your sexuality a dishonorable emotion. But this doesn’t mean He doesn’t like you, or that He would refuse to love you! Goodness, He’s saying that man, focused on the physical pleasures of life, will inevitably miss the representation of the joining of man and woman in different social, physical and spiritual aspects, and its implications in revealing aspects of Paul’s evangel. Our physical senses, in this case, can hinder one’s spiritual understanding, because a craving will distract from the point. Before you know it, you’re so caught up chasing the pleasures of these dying bodies that spiritual growth cannot be fostered, dishonorable emotion reigns, and one loses sight of their own purpose.

Nevertheless, I’m speaking historically and spiritually – not with disdain toward you. And we are, thankfully, in a period of man’s history where God is not speaking with disdain toward you, either – which we will discover when we reach chapter 3 of Romans. What I’m saying, politely, is that neither myself or God carry any animosity toward you. If there is any animosity between us, or between you and God, I can assure you through this evangel of God’s Son that it is a one-sided grudge. And, if anyone does come up to you and tell you that “God hates you because you’re gay” or something, simply rest in the fact that, because of the era in which God is saving people both in and for grace, you are not currently being condemned for your actions (2 Cor. 5:19.) God is, again, stating a fact, not berating you personally.

Anyway, folks, it is a fact that this is not an era where believers become so by adhering to the law (especially all the Old Testament verses I cited earlier, which are only referenced as proof of Paul’s correlations and declarations,) but on God’s terms (Rom. 1:16,) by His methods (Rom. 1:17,) which is grace (Rom. 3:21-26, 6:14.) In other words, God is not asking you to stop sinning in order to be saved.

Unfortunately, this statement is met with the ignorant objection from the peanut gallery: “Stephen, by saying this, you are diluting grace. You’re telling me that you can just keep sinning and still be saved without consequence?” To this I reply: no! I didn’t say that at all! Get this: only sinners can be saved. If God told you to stop sinning in order to be saved, then the moment you stopped sinning, you would no longer need a savior! You would have saved yourself. The objection is a poorly forced connection that we will be covering at the beginning of Romans 6.

The fact remains that Paul is discussing a backdrop to the evangel – a backdrop that will, inevitably, lock up all of humanity together under the same charge: Not one is just. There is not even one (Rom. 3:10.) You are destined to find yourself somewhere in here. You will be identified with at least one of Paul’s claims (though as I grow older I find that all of us are identifiable with more than one of Paul’s claims.) If you don’t see yourself anywhere here in Romans 1, then you certainly have not yet been prepared to apprehend the evangel, and likely do not believe in Romans 3 and 4.

Gay people find themselves referenced here? Well, that’s just great! At least they didn’t see it until Romans 1:27! I, however, found myself right in Romans 1:18, at the start of this whole debacle: irreverent toward God, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. Carrying the truth in injustice, by adhering to forced religious lies about God instead of hearing out His explanations. This is the unfortunate reality of sin – it is in our bodies. There is no ability to “completely stop sinning” today, and in the last 6,000 years of human history, it has only ever been pulled off by One individual, Who was not generated by man. The point of this passage, in identifying your reality with sin, is to paint an unsolvable picture of the human condition – one that is confused, in conflict with its own nature, waging war, domineering, and worshipping itself as it slowly, but surely, dies.

*   *   *

One more little bit, here, and we’ll cover the third consequence concerning our charges in the next article. Paul tells us that the men that commit this act are “getting back in themselves the retribution of their deception which must be.” This, once again, takes us back to the core issue with the topic: the sovereignty of God. Once again, the fact that He causes the issue seeps into the very fabric of the argument. To “get back” something in Greek is to “get” or “receive” something. It is similar to “obtain” from Rom. 1:5, but with a key difference: the “reception” here is not two-sided. To obtain includes both a giving and a taking (stress on giving,) while “getting back” relies, literally, on simply getting.

This is made more apparent by the fact that they object that they are receiving is “retribution.” This word, “INSTEAD-HIRE,” is marred by our CLV, here, and should read recompense. It is, simply, to be paid for the service that you are hired to complete. They are, simply, getting paid for their work in the flesh. Paul concludes that this must be. Given the blatant sovereignty of God over our trials, which are expressed in these verses, it is fair to rationalize that this “must be” – not because of man and their dishonorable emotions, but because God is creating a scenario where He can display His indignation to His creation, and must pay the irreverence accordingly. For one’s deception to be ignored entirely would mar the claims God makes to His righteousness.

With this conclusive clause, we can see the heart of God’s disposition – He does not see a gay man as inherently broken, or some flaw in His story, or as some unplanned glitch in the matrix. He has, figuratively, hired the gay man to literally be gay (just as God hired Satan to ruin all of Job’s valuables.) If we do not apprehend His sovereignty over our individual lives in these examples, as He directly expresses it, then we will fail to grasp the all-encompassing answer to the problem of evil which Romans presents.

Last question, and it’s a poignant one: why? Why would God intentionally hire someone to do that which He considers dishonorable?

This is one of the most important questions in the continued debate between “free will” and “God’s sovereignty.” The question is directly answered in Romans 9, and we will cover it in greater detail when we arrive at that point in Paul’s letter, but for now, we can boil it down to the contrast between honor and dishonor, as Paul will. Without dishonor, we cannot appreciate honor. One cannot even define honor until its opposite is experienced, internally or externally. It is not until the woman’s natural use is set aside that the woman’s natural use can be truly appreciated. And, on a broader scale, it is not until God’s sovereignty is challenged that it can be fully appreciated.

- GerudoKing