Search Eternally Blessed Archive

Search by passage (e.g., John 3:16), keyword (e.g., Jesus, prophet, etc.) or topic (e.g., salvation)

Romans 1 vs 26 - Working the Word - 5b

Format: mp3,pdf
Publication Date: 1973

Victor Paul Wierwille was a Bible scholar and teacher for over four decades.

By means of Dr. Wierwille's dynamic teaching of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, foundational class and advanced class graduates of Power for Abundant Living have learned that the one great requirement for every student of the Bible is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Thus, his presentation of the Word of God was designed for students who desire the in-depth-accuracy of God’s Word.

In his many years of research, Dr. Wierwille studied with such men as Karl Barth, E. Stanley Jones, Glenn Clark, Bishop K.C. Pillai, and George M. Lamsa. His formal training included Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Theology degrees from Mission House (Lakeland) College and Seminary. He studied at the University of Chicago and at Princeton Theological Seminary from which he received a Master of Theology degree in Practical Theology. Later he completed his work for the Doctor of Theology degree.

Dr. Wierwille taught the first class on Power for Abundant Living in 1953.

Books by Dr. Wierwille include: Are the Dead Alive Now? published in 1971; Receiving the Holy Spirit Today published in 1972; five volumes of Studies in Abundant Living— The Bible Tells Me So (1971), The New, Dynamic Church (1971), The Word's Way (1971), God's Magnified Word (1977), Order My Steps in Thy Word (1985); Jesus Christ Is Not God (1975); Jesus Christ Our Passover (1980); and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed (1982).

Dr. Wierwille researched God's Word, taught, wrote, and traveled worldwide, holding forth the accuracy of God's "wonderful, matchless" Word.

Someone read
me Isaiah 32:5. Whose got it? Alright, Brian.
Isaiah 32:5:
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
Read the verse before it.
Isaiah 32:4:
The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the
stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
Alright someone read me I Samuel 15:9.
I Samuel 15:9:
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen,
and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly
destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Read me the verse in front of it.
I Samuel 15:8:
And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the
people with the edge of the sword.
Next verse, but…
I Samuel 15:9:
But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen,
and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly
destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Vile is garbage can like trip. Stinky, you got the picture of this? Now, I’ll put this
together from that one in Isaiah, and there’s a good one in Daniel too we’re not going to
look up. [Romans 1:26:] But “for this cause God gave them up unto vile,” trash cans,
despicable, despised, you know, stinky, rotten. Got the depth of it? In Romans 9:21, what’s
the Greek word?
[Student:] It’s atimia.
Right. Romans 9:21 the word “dishonor” is atimia. Look at I Corinthians 15:43: It is
sown in atimia. In I Corinthians 15 is that the one I just read? In 11:14. And chapter 11 is a
little familiar to us.
I Corinthians 15:11:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame...
The word “shame” is the word atimia. That’s II Corinthians 11:21, what’s it there?
II Corinthians 11:21:
I speak concerning [what?] reproach,...
Reproach is atimia. Now, you see? You can check all of these out like Walter can do
here in his concordance, like you can do here in this one; that’s how you get to all of them.
Your Greek reads, “theos eis pathē atimias.” And this pathos is the word from which we
get the word pathetic, sympathetic, isn’t it? Pathos?
[Walter:] I believe, yes. Right.
Look up Colossians 3:5 – inordinate affection; pathos. You see pathos is really to have
(we get the word) sympathy, pathetic; it literally means a complete identification with.
When you say a person’s in a pathetic condition, what do you mean? He’s almost had it;
he’s at the end of his rope, strung out. You say, well he looks pathetically. That means he’s
emaciated all the rest of it; you have a picture in your mind?... I Thessalonians 4:5.
Concupiscence? What you got, 4:5?
[Walter:] “Not in the lust....”
The word “lust”? That’s the word, what? {Pathos.}
[Walter:] That’s pathos.
All right. Another thing that I do when I work this stuff, I just remembered it now, I go
to its first usage many times, knowing that Thessalonians was the first of the epistles
written. I’ll go to it rather than Romans when I’m working Romans; I’ll check it back.
Colossians was written later, I’ll take the Colossians work in second place and go to its
first usage. And this translation “lust of concupiscence,” it’s the lowest down passions of
passions. I had a bunch of other scriptures that I’ve noted down, maybe we ought to just
take a look at them. See if I got them all in here, II Corinthians 6:8. Now Bullinger does
you a great favor many times in looking all these up and putting them into his margin, that
you don’t have to look them all up. But I never trust Bullinger completely; I use him, but I
still will go back and double check when I’m really working a word. Bullinger will have
all of these scriptures in his margin, some place or another. Because, I’ve checked out
Bullinger completely on this. II Corinthians 6:8, okay which word is it there, Walter?
[Walter:] Dishonor.
Right. Really something, isn’t it?
[Walter:] This is many times contrasted with the word “glory”; that word “honor” there is
doxa, glory. I noticed that in other places.
That’s terrific, the glory is as high as you can go, the other is as low as you can go.
You know, the glory, Christ in you the hope of glory. High as you can go; this is as low as
man can go. But you can see why it’s para: dropped off completely, and that word “unto”:
all the way down. Another one I have in here is II Corinthians 11:21. Which one is it there?
{Reproach} Yeah, that’s it, reproach. We did that one a while ago, didn’t we?Should have
remembered that. II Timothy 2:20...:
II Timothy 2:20:
But in a great house [there you are again]...vessels of gold and of silver, but also
of wood and of earth; and some of honour....
Glory, right?
[Walter:] No, that’s timē; that’s just honor.
Oh, wonder why? Boy, now you see, this is the kind of stuff where I need Estrangelo
Aramaic, you see, we checked all the way through to see now, if we could pattern glory all
the way through, that this would be that in here. Isn’t that something? We’re going to be a
change real quick, honey. That’s great, isn’t it? Okay, enough. Do I have to do anything
with for, with gar, or ai te, Walter?
[Walter:] No, except “even,” I don’t understand that. Oh, “before” is all right.... But the
word ai is a relative pronoun.
Okay, tell me.
[Walter:] It’s feminine – plural. I don’t know what it would refer to. “God gave them up
unto,” oh, passions. It’s passions?
No, for both men and women.
[Walter:] Oh yeah, it goes with females.
For both the women, how are we going to do that?

[Student:] In the Greek it says for both their women.
[Walter:] I think that’s the article, goes with females. What is it in the King James?
For their women, 26 [Romans 1:26.]
[Walter:] It’s the women there, but the word te what do you call it, when you have 2?
Correlative, you have a te there and the second word in verse 27 is te.
[Walter:] Both their women (change the natural use) and their men, see? It’s a correlative,
both these and these.
And in the truth of it, the word “both” carries over tying together, the ai te of 26 with
the te of 27.
[Walter:] Right.
What it’s saying to you, it’s saying in sort of a double fashion. In 26 it tells you the
women did it; in 27 it said the men did it too, all the way down to the bottom level. That’s
what it’s saying.
[Walter:] Then you don’t translate ai the article.
[Walter:] The word ai, you don’t translate because it wouldn’t make since in English. It’s
their women. There is a word for “their.” You wouldn’t say, “the, their women.”
No, for both. Then I’d put a parenthesis behind it. Maybe, huh? Men and women?
[Walter:] Right. Keep it separate.
Right, for both. Parenthesis, men and women.
[Romans 1:26:]
...for both their women did change...
Now the word “change,” is this word in the Aramaic the same in 23, 26, 27? What
does it literally mean in Estrangelo Aramaic?
[Bernita:] Changed or transmute.
To transmute. See, they’re all three the same: in 23 “changed the glory”; and in 25
“who changed the truth”; and 26 “changed the natural use.” The word “change” in
Estrangelo is all the same, but in Greek in 23 it’s a different word, yeah?
[Walter:] Right.
[Student:] It’s just the addition of the prefix isn’t it, or not?
What’s the prefix? All right, all right, I got it. The Greek word is metallattō, and in 23
they just dropped the meta. Now, what does the word meta mean, Walter?
[Walter:] “With” as in association with.
With, as in association with. Now, this has to be right or could be right here, because
it’s with as in association with, having just both their men and women doing this thing
together, got it? Now, the word allattō again here we would have to look up all of its usage.
Do you know exactly what that word and how it is used other places, Walter?
[Walter:] No.
[Young’s Concordance, “change” No. 16:] And shall change the customs; changed the
glory; not all sleep, but we shall be changed; in a moment we shall be changed; I desire to
be present...and to be changed; and as a vesture...they shall be changed. Changed, changed.
Not all shall sleep but shall be changed, that’s allattō.
[Walter:] Allattō, this comes from allos.
Yeah, you see how we would work this down from our working on the word heteros,
we go to allos, gets to be real interesting, doesn’t it, on that usage.
[Student:] How about exchange or substitute?
I’ll put the word substitute down here or substituted, for “changed.” See what they did?
They substituted that with this: the glory with. I think we’ll hold that for a minute. Isn’t
that wonderful? Now, verse 27 again, this word, [verse] 26, the word “natural.” You have
the word used in verse 27 also.
Romans 1:26, 27:
[...for even their women did change the natural use...]
...leaving the natural use...
These are the only two places I believe they’re used in the Word. Yes Donna? [Donna
responds.] Yeah, okay. II Peter 2:12.
II Peter 2:12:
But these, as natural brute beasts, …
Now that adds a little flavor for me, brute beasts. I told you once that a person outside
of Christ is simply an animal, right? Like a horse. Horse, an animal? Man without Christ is
an animal. I’ll put the word “brutish” next to natural to drive it in my head. Yes, Craig?
[Craig:] The interlinear used the word “irrational, natural irrational.”
When it reaches the vileness with which we’re talking, I could understand this because
he gives us a sound mind. These will be even devil spirit driven. This is where the
whipping comes in, and the dogs come in and the animals and the intercourse, yes?
[Student:] I wondered in that eis back there in the beginning on the unto when you said the
complete magnitude if that would go all the way to born of the seed of the serpent?
I don’t think so. No, because, then we would have to deal with a child situation,
Lesson 5 Romans 1:26 Working the Word 51
basically. I don’t think that’s what he’s trying to say here. Because, I believe if you were
born of the seed of the serpent you might not act this way, you’d be smarter. The adversary
would say, “Look, we have to make you look real good.”
All right, “use” is the Greek word again, c-h-r-ē-s-i-s (chrēsis) and again it is used in
verse 27, and that’s it. Then you got into that which is against nature. Into, again it’s the
word eis. All the way unto, remember? And the word “against,” is that word we worked
earlier, from the side of, it’s para, or from beside. Right, Walter?
[Walter:] Right, I believe that’s the accusative.
[Student:] Would that mean it’s changing, all the way to be beside nature? It wouldn’t be
contrary or against, using nature in the negative sense. Okay, para is from beside, I get
Okay? Do you have something to add there?
[Walter:] No, that word para with the accusative, I thought meant to the side of - going
the opposite direction, coming in to the side of. Does Bullinger have it?
Dative, genitive, dative?
[Walter:] To a place.
...With accusative, denotes motion to a place, okay. You want to finish this out Walter?
Write in here what should be right, then dismiss the group. I’ll pick up my stuff later, okay?
Love you kids.
[Students:] God bless.
[Walter:] What did we decide on this? To the side of?
[Student:] We didn’t actually decide. I was thinking that to the side of would fit brute
beast, to the side of nature, brute beasts.
[Walter:] To a place, so as to be along side it.
[Student:] Sure that makes sense; they are going from the creator to nature.
[Student:] They’re going from what they’re supposed to do to the opposite of what they’re
supposed to be doing. Female is supposed to be with male. She’s going to that side
instead of a male being at her side, she has a female at her side.
[Student:] You said about para, could that be, you have nature and against nature, as we
saw God giving them up, is that the same relationship with the same word. God is God
and them dropping off the end, that relationship holding with this one, where you have
nature and then them dropping off against nature, see what I’m saying? I’m thinking
it’s the same thing, like you have the circle up there and you have the circle down here.
Up there you have God and then them dropping off down here you have nature and
against nature.

[Walter:] They’re like going against it?
[Student:] That’s what Bullinger said. I have beside, beyond and so again in those two
[Walter:] What two verses?
[Student:] [Romans]1:25 and 1:26
[Walter:] Oh, right. Like you’ve got a balloon and you’re pushing against it.
[Student:] You’re not running along side it in harmony, like you should.
[Walter:] Right.
[Student:] So does the error come at the end? Like you said?
[Walter:] Yeah, but like you’re pushing against it. In other words, I’d say it more like this.
[Student:] What is it that causes that change to make it a push against instead of a push
away? Instead of the tangent?
[Walter:] Oh, a different case following the. Of course, with the other one you didn’t have
a case, but with this one you’ve got the accusative case. That’s why it makes the arrow
come in against it see?
[Student:] Where is the accusative case?
[Walter:] The word “nature,” the last word in the verse. That was against nature, see?
That’s the word, that’s in the accusative case, against nature. And that word eis is
before it is unto, all the way unto that which is against (that’s pushing to the side of
and against nature.)
[Student:] And in the middle of the circle it’s no longer tangent right?
[Walter:] If it’s not what?
[Student:] Tangent only touches one point, right? So it comes in and protrudes?
[Walter:] Yeah, it protrudes into. I see a balloon, and when you push like a stick up against
it, it’s pushing against that thing, see? Only it would be more like a solid ball because
you would break yourself. To the side of, as against, okay? Then against nature. Okay.
Now, [are] we supposed to do a literal on this?
[Student:] I must have missed it; did we do anything for that word “nature”?
[Walter:] No. He didn’t have that down here, that’s just nature.
[Student:] phusis, from which we get “physical.”
[Student:] Did we finish the word “change”?

[Walter:] To substitute, I think was good. Okay, now. Start at the beginning. Now, I’m
going to do a literal on this, and Donna, why don’t you help me? See, when you’re
doing a literal translation on a verse like this, we’ve just gone through every word.
Now, of course you’ve been working too in Romans for the past, since this Fall began,
I guess, but you have the idea of the context. It’s a subject you’ve been working in,
right? Now, if you really had your head into that thing, for say several hours, during
the last day or two and were really thinking this thing and you knew what the context
said and the related scriptures, then when you went to make this literal that thing
would say exactly what you knew it had to say from all of the related scriptures, as
well as what it says here. What I’m trying to do is apologize, because I don’t know if
this is going to be the best. Donna? Here we go. Okay, all right. We start with:
Because of this. Now, if I were doing this, remember this is not a literal translation; it’s
a literal translation according to usage.
Romans 1:25 (Literal):
Because of this [this, what?], they changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creation more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Verse 24, going back further:
Romans 1:24b:
...They dishonored their bodies between themselves:
See? Because of this, and all things back there further. If I were doing a literal on this I
might even go back and pick up on some of those things, would you?
[Donna:] Well, I was thinking that when you said they worshipped the creature more than
the Creator in the summation of all of the stuff that followed, that’s what it all
amounted to. They did these vile things to their bodies, that’s the creature. Because
they worshipped the creature more than the Creator, God the Creator gave them the
[Walter:] Because they worshipped, because of this they worshipped the Creator. Do we
put that in parenthesis? Would you? Okay, because of this (they worshipped) in
parenthesis now; they worshipped the creation, is that it?
[Donna:] The creature.
[Walter:] Isn’t that creation? Created thing, ktisis, okay the creature, let’s leave it set for
now. As it says in there, “more than the Creator.”
[Donna:] I have creature, out of the King James.
[Walter:] Should it be creature or creation? Creation. Change your “ure” to “ion”. Because
of this, parenthesis (they worshipped the creation more than the Creator,) end of
parenthesis. God, the Creator, what?
[Student:] Do we use parenthesis?
[Donna:] I used parenthesis because I put more words in.
[Walter:] Right, here we had to use parenthesis because it wouldn’t make sense English
wise. The reason I question putting parenthesis is because, keeping in mind it’s not a
literal but a literal according to usage and this is God, the Creator, see? Would you
agree with that?
[Donna:] Yeah the Word itself says that actually.
[Walter:] Right. All right, “God, the Creator, gave them up.” How about in parenthesis
then, from the top side and let them dangle? Were you here for that part?
[Donna:] No, I would say that more according to the idea that they said in the word, they
said they already walked away so God relinquished. That’s where my mind was on
that type of explanation.
[Walter:] Remember what he said here? About from the side of, God gave them up and let
them dangle out here. Now is there any way we can clarify that more?
[Student:] But he said they really weren’t dangling, they went all the way.
[Walter:] They went all the way, yeah. But that comes up later.
[Donna:] Yeah, I think after they had left his side.
[Walter:] After they left Him.
[Donna:] Put it in perfect tense, had left.
[Walter:] After they had left Him. Okay.
Romans 1:26a (Literal):
God, the Creator, gave them up after they had left Him....
[Walter:] Gave them up.
[Student:] What about the “beside” idea; what about the “top side” idea?
[Walter:] See, that’s where I don’t know if we can really communicate what the Greek
[Student:] Perhaps say, after they had left His top side?
[Walter:] But what does that mean?
[Student:] Well, you can change top side to say, after they had left His favor.
[Walter:] His good side. [LAUGHTER]
[Student:] Dr. Wierwille said, because of the word “burn” that you see later that para also
has the connotation. They change positions, that’s what I’m thinking. That you could
use something like, allowed them to pass all the way down.
[Walter:] Let’s not add to much more, right now, okay?
Romans 1:26b (Literal):
...gave them up after they had left Him [to go] all the way unto...
[Walter:] Put that “to go” in brackets. All the way unto. Now, where did we arrive on vile?
[Student:] Trash, garbage.
[Walter:] Trash, filthy, all the way unto; pathos was what? Affections was what?
[Walter:] Pathetic, as low as man can go, the opposite of glory.
[Walter:] How about filthy, pathetic affections. Is that as low as you can go? Donna.
[Donna:] What does the pathetic go with? I got lost.
[Walter:] Pathetic. You know the word affections is pathos.
[Donna:] That’s what I thought.
[Walter:] So I’m saying pathetic affections.
[Donna:] But you’re using the same word, you’re doubling the word then. You would use
filthy, what did you say?
[Walter:] Filthy, then pathetic affections.
[Donna:] But pathetic is taken from the word “affections,” so you’ve doubled the word in
a sense that wasn’t there.
[Student:] Well you could do that in usage can’t you? for clarity.
[Student:] Didn’t you say that pathetic identified with the thing that you’re looking at.
Remember you said pathetic conditions showed how crumby the conditions, and it
identified with the crumbiness, so then vile seems like it would have to come after
pathetic, like pathetic vileness, so you would identify with what comes after it.
[Student:] How about: lowest down filth?
[Walter:] No.
[Student:] How about: identification; complete identification with filth?
[Walter:] Okay, let’s arrive at a definition for our word pathe. Is it pathetic affections,
pathetic, what is it?
[Donna:] Pathos or pathetic means emotion.
[Student:] Dr. [Wierwille] already told us once passions is imfamy.
[Walter:] Passions? Was that the word?
[Walter:] Yeah, that went with vile.
[Donna:] Not for both words, Linda, that’s for vile affections. He gave passions of infamy.
[Walter:] yeah and the word infamy, vile is not an adjective describing natural or
describing pathos, it’s a noun in the genitive case. It’s that regimen figure [Figures of
Speech: Bullinger. Antimeria IV. No. 5]; passions of infamy, filth, with the emphasis
on what? The filth.
[Walter:] An alliteration is a figure of speech, isn’t it? Which emphasizes. How about
pathetic passions? Does passions really describe it?
[Student:] What you’re trying to do, pathos in the Greek means passions, right? We’re
trying to transliterate it into pathetic or something like that I don’t think that’s there.
[Walter:] Well, what does pathos mean then?
[Student:] In the Greek, according to Bullinger, just passions and lust.
[Walter:] And is that what we arrived at a while ago?
[Student:] He said we get the word “pathetic” though. We get the word “pathetic” in
English but that doesn’t mean that’s what the Word says.
[Walter:] Passions is not the lowest a man can go.
[Student:] Dr.Wierwille said that pathos meant lowest down passions of passions.
[Walter:] Okay, lowest down passions, but you can have good passions, can’t you?
[Walter:] Unless, I misunderstand the word.
[Student:] The vileness would describe how low the passions are. So it would be passions
of vileness.
[Walter:] Okay.

[Student:] At first it says pathetic and then it changes the definition; not really talking
about an emotion any more.
[Walter:] Okay, can we talk about the lowest down passions? How do you say that? Lust?
[Walter:] Wait, hold it. What does “infamy” mean?
[Student:] That was a synonym for vile.
[Walter:] Yeah, I know that, but what does it mean? Okay, you tell me the word I want for
vile, or atimia being in the genitive because it’s that regimen, figure of speech which
puts the emphasis on how bad it was.
Romans 1:26a (Literal):
God...gave them up after they had left Him, [to go] all the way unto the lowest
passions of [what?] filth...
[Walter:] Filth? Would that do it?
[Student:] I think that’s Literally true in the world from the places I saw in Hawaii.
[Walter:] How do you spell “filth”? That’s what I thought. All right:
Romans 1:26a (Literal):
...all the way unto the lowest passions of filth; for both their women...
[Student:] Remember the correlative between 26 and 27?
[Walter:] Okay, let’s write it out and then we’ll go back and put the parenthesis in, okay?
“...for both their women,” now what? [CROWD ANSWERS] “...for both their women
substituted,” what?
[Student:] The natural use. They used the word “brutish” from II Peter 2:12. You can’t use
it here though.
[Walter:] No not here. “...substituted the natural use.” That word is physikēn from which
we get physical. Can we say physical? Natural physical use?
Romans 1:26b (Literal):
...the natural physical use all the way unto that which is...
[Walter:] How about up against? Like pushing; to the side of.
[Student:] Could you say pushing against? Would you say opposed?
[Walter:] Pushing that which is pushing against.

[Donna:] What did I hear you say? Something about reverse movement, or something to
Dr. Wierwille; I didn’t catch all of it when we were working on this word.
[Walter:] It’s the opposite of para with a genitive, which means: from the top away from;
tangent, dangling. But this with the accusative, is like opposite, up against, to the side
[Donna:] Then to me it’s like a direct contradiction. Like we’re setting up a contradiction?
Or opposition?
[Walter:] It’s not a contradiction, you mean that they’re opposite?
[Donna:] Yeah. In Contrast.
Romans 1:26 (Literal):
God gave them up to go all the way unto the lowest passions of filth for both their
women substituted the natural physical use all the way unto that which is against
(or pushing against) nature.
[Walter:] Does that fit? Yeah it’s a different word but it’s the same root word, from which
we get physical. Physical use, all the way unto that which is opposed to. That’s the
[Walter:] I like that: pushing against nature. Against nature.
[Student:] We had natural physical use before.
[Walter:] The first one we said natural physical use.
[Student:] And this is just going to be pushing against nature. Pushing against that right
physical nature.
[Walter:] Right, but nature has the idea of being physical.
[Student:] So you could put the word physical and nature in here at the end?
[Walter:] But I wouldn’t. I don’t think I would, because nature is obviously physical, but
when you say natural, you can be naturally spiritual. Isn’t that right, Donna?
[Donna:] I guess.
[Walter:] Okay:
Romans 1:25b, 26 (Literal):
...because of this (they worshipped the creation more than the creator) God, the
Creator, gave them up after they had left Him [to go] all the way unto the lowest
passions of filth, for both their women substituted the natural physical use all the
way unto that which is pushing against nature.

[Student:] It reads really nice without the parenthesis too.
[Walter:] And verse 27. I’m putting an “and” there. See, for both their women something
and the men something. Got it? That’s the correlative. Both this and that. What?
[Student:] I was just looking at that verse 27 at also.
[Walter:] Yeah, or likewise? Also.
Romans 1:27a (Literal):
For both their women substituted and their men substituted also…
[Donna:] By the way that “also” there according to where it is the Greek (just bring it over
into the English and put it into the proper position for emphasis) should go before the
like manner. And also in like manner.
[Walter:] No, the word kai should be and, no te.
[Donna:] That’s what I thought te was, because you have ai te up in the both.
[Walter:] And in like manner, the men also (putting the emphasis on men.)
[Donna:] I’m not sure, but in the little booklet Also doesn’t it always follow the word?
[Walter:] Proceeds.
[Donna:] Oh, preceeds. Then we put it after in English; we put it to the opposite place.
[Walter:] Right, in English, we always make it follow. But let’s not get into that verse.