14 Talking Points in Defense of Homosexuality (2)
Many critics of the Bible take issue with what they do not understand. Homosexuals, for instance, say, “See you eat shrimp, which is forbidden in the Scriptures; so, you should realize that homosexuality is all right, also.” They could also have selected bacon, ham, or sausage to make the point, but it would still be invalid. On the opposite side of the coin, they indicate that Christians don’t stone adulterers; therefore, we recognize that culture changes and so homosexuality should now be accepted.
Their main problem, besides having a great eagerness to justify what is wicked, is that they fail to understand key principles in interpreting the Bible correctly. First of all, the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy contain laws for the children of Israel—not us. Furthermore, those laws are civil, moral, and religious because they were God’s chosen people at that time.
Initially, God was the head of the government; thus, capital punishment was prescribed for many offenses. A man was put to death, for example, for working on the Sabbath day (Num. 15:32-36). Today, if people who worked on Saturday were put to death, half the population would be wiped out. If a prophet claimed to speak for God, but what he foretold did not come to pass, he was to be put to death (Deut. 18:20-22). If false prophets were put to death today, there would be room on television for much more religious programing. One of Maneker’s 14 points—third in his attempt to justify homosexuality—referred to parents taking a gluttonous and winebibbing son to the elders to be put to death (Deut. 21:20). Many youths would never reach full adulthood today if that principle were still valid.
The fact is that all of these laws, including the dietary ones, were part of a covenant that God made with Israel. They, including the ones prohibiting homosexuality, were nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and are no longer in effect—as part of that law. God has made a new covenant with all mankind, which has been valid since the first century. Christians have not been given the authority to use the death penalty on those who violate the teaching of the New Testament. That duty has been given to the civil government in every country (Rom. 13:1-7). Many civil laws once included punishments for those who committed adultery or practiced homosexuality. Civil governments today either do not have such laws, or they do not enforce them.
God has no dietary laws for the Christian era; eating shrimp and pork are all right (Acts 10:15). Wearing clothing with mixed fibers is no longer forbidden, and Christians do not stone anyone. Either Maneker did not understand the difference between the two covenants, or he did not want to comprehend it. As for the prohibitions against women speaking in the church or teaching over men publicly, those are from the New Testament and have not changed (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
“Wait!” someone says. “Did you say that the condemnations against homosexuality are no longer in effect?” No, the Law containing those prohibitions (and the prescribed penalties) is no longer in effect. The appropriate question to ask would be, “What does the New Testament teach?” The answer is that it condemns homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Jude 7). This completes the refutation of Maneker’s third point. He still has eleven more ways to try to justify the practice of homosexuality.
4. The “sin of Sodom” (Genesis 19) has nothing to do with homosexuality. It deals with gang rape. Whenever Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is never mentioned as its sin. Its sins are primarily inhospitality and not taking care of the poor.
Maneker wishes this were the case! The word Sodom appears 48 times in the Bible (21 times in Genesis and 27 in the rest of the Bible). Gomorrah appears 19 times in the Old Testament and in 5 New Testament verses. Most of the time a specific sin is not mentioned, but the reason for that is that everyone remembers what occurred in Genesis 19 and why God destroyed them.
Suppose Maneker is correct, and the sin would have involved gang rape. It still would not have involved men abusing women; it still would have meant males lying with males. Besides, if the men of Sodom had the mindset Maneker ascribes to them, one should ask, “How did they arrive at that point?” Such a condition does not exist until society first accepts the practice of homosexuality in general.
Where did Maneker get the idea that Sodom’s sins were “primarily inhospitality and not taking care of the poor”? As usual, he provides no Scripture, but he may be referring to Ezekiel 16:49, which says: “Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” The careful reader will note that Sodom here is being used as a metaphor, starting in Ezekiel 16:46. However, even if it were intended as literal, it would not be surprising that the city was guilty of more than one sin. However, verse 50 adds: “And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”
Is it true that there is no verse connecting Sodom with homosexuality? Evidently, Maneker somehow overlooked Jude 6-7. Angels were punished “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Why are they an example of suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? Inhospitality? Failure to give to the poor? No, the reason cited is their sexual immorality (ekporneuo) and their having gone after strange flesh.” Why was it strange? Because the men of Sodom were not seeking the complimentary kind of flesh that God designed for man in woman. It was strange because there was no difference; men with men is the same flesh. Notice also that “homosexuality” is one of the definitions of fornication. Maneker is totally wrong in the claims he made in point #4.
The gist of point #5 is that mankind has sufficiently been fruitful and multiplied; therefore, homosexuality can be safely allowed. He points out that we no longer require a widow to marry her brother-in-law. True—because that covenant was for the nation of Israel. We are not under that covenant today. A false assumption is present here, however, and that is that homosexuality was only forbidden because the earth needed to be filled with people. No evidence exists for this conclusion. The practice is wrong in and of itself no matter what the population of the earth is.
6. If homosexuality is so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments; why did the prophets never write about it; why didn’t Jesus ever condemn it? If it were important, don’t you think that it would have been mentioned in at least one of these contexts?
Let’s try this reasoning with other sins besides homosexuality. If rape is so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments? If incest is so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments? If not getting drunk is so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments? Need we go on? None of these other sexual sins were likely to be so much of a temptation as adultery was. But four cities were destroyed because of homosexuality (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim). Israel went to war with the tribe of Benjamin, almost wiping it out, for the same reason (Judges 19-21).
Jesus did condemn homosexuality! As we saw above, the words translated “fornication” include homosexuality (not to mention bestiality and incest). So, when he included “fornications” (porneia) in a list of other sins in Matthew 15:19, He did condemn same-sex sins. Notice also that the sin of fornication is the only cause for divorce (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9). Also, Jesus’ own brother, Jude, included going after “strange flesh” as fornication (v. 7).
When Satan tempted Eve, he appealed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (cf. Matt. 4:1-11; 1 John 2:15-17). Desiring to taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is only one example of the lust of the flesh, which includes fornication (including homosexuality), adultery, drunkenness, and gluttony. God did not need to specify all of these in the Ten Commandments for them to be wrong.
Point 7: Matthew 8:5-13
None of the defenses of same-sex intimacy have shown any merit. So, Maneker tries to show that various individuals had such a relationship—and that God approved of it. His first example is that of the centurion and his servant. Servants were cheap; why is the one in Matthew 8 so important? He must be a homosexual lover to the centurion. It is pointed out that in Luke 7:2, the servant was “dear to him.” Of course, there might be a number of reasons for that dearness besides the two of them having a sexual relationship. He could have been the son of an older servant; he could be dear by merit—due to his efficient management of the centurion’s affairs, as Joseph had been over Potiphar’s.
However, the author argues that it was a romantic relationship because the Greek word pais was used instead of doulos. Pais is often used of children—even an infant—as well as servants (Matt. 8:6, 8, 13). Doulos is used of the servant in Matthew 8:9. In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1-10, the servant is referred to as a doulos in verses 2-3, 8, and 10; only once is pais used (v. 7). Where is the proof that these two men were having an affair?
Matthew quotes a prophecy from Isaiah 42:1-4, which described God’s chosen servant (pais), which refers to Jesus. Does Maneker want to claim this is a romantic relationship? In Matthew 14:1-2, Herod speaks to his servants (pais); was he having romantic relationships with all of them? Mary claimed that God had helped His servant (pais) Israel (Luke 1:54); Zecharias referred to David as God’s servant (pais). The reader should be getting the point by now that the allegation of romance between the centurion and his servant is nothing more than gibberish. If such were the case, would the Jews have vouched for the man’s character (Luke 7:30-35)? Hah! The insinuation is preposterous!
David and Jonathan
The reader probably knew this one was coming sometime; it is the first half of Maneker’s 8th point. As proof that David and Jonathan were involved, Maneker cites 1 Samuel 16:12; 20:1-23, 32-34, 35-42; 2 Samuel 1:26. Some of the Scriptures he cited do not exist; some were redundant. The first of these above refers to David’s anointing as king. Chapter 20 shows the concern that Jonathan had for David, and the verse from 2 Samuel 1 has David declaring his love for the now deceased Jonathan. What is sad is that Maneker and others like him cannot believe that two men can have a high regard for each other without it being sexual.
The word translated “love” here is used of all human relationships as well as God’s love toward human beings. Although it can refer to sexual love, it is not inherent in the word. Just as a man and a woman can be friends without a sexual relationship, so can two men or two women. Just because a person may have a tender regard for a fellow human being does not imply that anything untoward has occurred.