14 Talking Points in Defense of Homosexuality (3)

Whenever people want to justify their errors, they will grasp hold of some of the most outrageous ideas and try to make them sound plausible. For example, Jerry Maneker, as part of his defense of homosexuality continually tries to justify the practice from the Scriptures. Along with many others, he suggests that David and Jonathan shared same-sex love. Really? Both men were married, which would make them bisexual. When David committed adultery, God severely rebuked him through Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. 12:7). Can anyone imagine David and Jonathan violating Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—and not being rebuked?!

But wait! It gets even more looney. In the second part of his eighth point out of 14, Maneker unbelievably adds these words: “If one reads the account of Deborah, a judge and esteemed warrior in Israel, one comes away with the feeling that she may well have been transgendered, as she certainly didn’t live up to the cultural expectations of how a ‘woman’ is to behave.” The text never even mentions that she was a cross dresser, let alone someone who posed as a male.

What exactly was Deborah guilty of? First of all, she was a prophetess—and the wife of Lapidoth (Judges 4:4). People knew she had wisdom from God, and they came out to see her “for judgment” (4:5). Does this arrangement violate some Old Testament precept? She reminded Barak of his obligation to fight the enemy, but he refused to go unless she accompanied him (4:6-8). Nothing indicates that she was a warrior previously or even then, but she did accompany him (4:9-10). In fact, Barak went down from the mountain with ten thousand men following him; nothing is said about Deborah (4:14-15).

Because of his insistence that Deborah come, the opposing general would be given into the hands of a woman—but that woman was Jael—not Deborah (4:17-22). After the battle, Deborah and Barak sang a song. Deborah describes herself—not as a warrior—but as “a mother in Israel” (5:7). Barak—not Deborah—is mentioned in Hebrews 11:32 as victorious. The text does not indicate she was a warrior. Certainly, this wife and mother in Israel was not transgendered. But she was a highly respected prophetess, whose presence on the battlefield was a great encouragement.

Male Cult Prostitution

This condition undoubtedly existed, but Maneker assumes that any mention of same sex couples refers to it, which he cannot prove. In his 8th point, this advocate for sin erroneously states that “same-sex love is never condemned!” But Paul does condemn it in Romans 1:26-27, where the context is society in general—not cult prostitution. Furthermore, Jude shows that such behavior has merited condemnation (v. 7).

Homosexual, Arsenkoitai, Malakos

Perhaps accidentally, the defender of perversion says something that is true: “The word ‘homosexual’ never appears in any biblical manuscript, as it was a word coined in the late 19th Century.” Likewise, the word dinosaur is not found in the Bible for the same reason; it was not invented until 1841. However, in both instances, that does not mean the concept was absent.

Consider Paul’s description in Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason God gave them over to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one for another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Does anyone have any trouble with this description, even though the word homosexual is not used? But what about the words that are used in the New Testament? One is arsenokoites [Strong’s #733], which Paul used as the last word in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Maneker says the word “doesn’t seem to appear in any other ancient writings, and may very well have been only used by the Apostle Paul.” He adds: “No one knows what Paul was referring to….” That’s funny. All of his scholarly homosexual friends seem to know precisely to what it refers. One cannot find an unbiased view on the subject on the internet. So, let’s see how it has been translated.

KJV – “abusers of themselves with mankind”
ASV – “abusers of themselves with men”
RSV – “sexual perverts”
NAS – “homosexuals”
NIV – “men who have sex with men”
NKJ – “sodomites”
Young’s Literal Translation – “sodomites”
ESV – “men who practice homosexuality”
CSB – “males who have sex with males”
NET – “practicing homosexuals”

Isn’t it interesting that none of these major translations has render arsenokoites as “cult prostitutes,” but that’s what homosexuals want for their definition, which is absolutely without foundation or merit. Their definition is theology driven. They seek justification rather than truth.

Arsenokoites is not actually a mystery word; it’s a compound word—from #730, arseen, translated “male” and #2845, koitee, translated “bed,” as in Hebrews 13:4. Is it really that difficult to arrive at the conclusion that males in bed are homosexuals (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10)?

The other word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakos, which primarily means “soft,” the subject of Maneker’s 11th point. The word is used by Jesus when He affirmed that John the Baptizer did not wear soft clothing (Matt. 11:8 [twice]; Luke 7:25). Malakia [#3119] comes from malakos [3120]. Interestingly, it is translated “disease” in all of its New Testament usages (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:1).

Maneker thinks “effeminate” is an inappropriate translation because men and women are equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Is this a non sequitur?

“Against Nature”

Since Romans 1:26-27 is such a devastating passage, Maneker tries to undermine its influence in his 12th point. He says that it was also against nature for God to welcome Gentiles into the fold (Rom. 11:21-24). God did remove some natural branches so that He could graft in Gentiles. Some Jews counted themselves unworthy of the gospel, but many Gentiles were interested. However, recognizing what Romans 11 teaches does not affect Romans 1:26-27 even a little.

Many things could be against nature in a number of different ways. What is the point of Romans 1:26-27? Two men together or two women together is not natural. God designed a man and a woman to be together sexually. Surely, it is not difficult to comprehend why same-sex couples engage in what is against nature. Maneker suggested that the better translation would be “unexpected”—something no Bible translators have ever thought of.

Biblical Principles?

Another part of Maneker’s rationale that is hard to understand can be found in his 13th point:

The Biblical principle is the Gospel, the Good News, of God’s grace (unmerited favor) to us that we appropriate through our faith in Him. (Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Apparently, he thinks that God saves people by grace through faith—and nothing else. Nothing is wrong with the Scriptures Maneker cites, but they do not tell the whole story. Is grace necessary? Absolutely! Without it, we really have nothing to talk about.

Is faith essential to salvation? Yes. No one can be saved without it. But that is as far as some people want to go. How about what Jesus said in Luke 13:3 and 5? He declared: ”I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” We cannot just appeal to God’s grace and conclude that we are all saved. Neither can we require a person to have faith and then declare them saved, either. People must repent of their sins and quit living in sin. That means that fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals must give up their sinful behavior. Those guilty of such sins had repented in Corinth (1 Cor 6:9-11).

The author of this document continually gives the impression that all (such as homosexuals) who simply say, “I believe in Jesus,” are saved without any repentance on their part, which is false. They also need to be baptized to wash their sins away (Acts 2:38; 22:16). All who are guilty of sin must give up their sinful practices (repentance) and let the blood of Jesus wash their sins away (Rev. 1:5).

Once again Maneker quotes from the author of a book he recommends, who in his marvelous wisdom wrote: “Much of the mind-set and many of the words that appear in Scripture don’t mean what we think they mean from our perspective.” Should we guess what some of those words are? How about effeminate and against nature? What that author desires is that he should be able to re-define words that everybody knows so that they say something different—or even opposite.

In the 14th (and last) point, Maneker calls upon his audience to exercise the fruit of the Spirit, which is an excellent suggestion. (But does he understand faithfulness and self-control?) Then he adds that we should “live out the Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness.” Once again, he includes nothing about repentance or obedience. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Christianity is inclusive—to everyone who repents; it is exclusive of those who refuse to do so.

In the true spirit of Isaiah 5:20, Maneker says that those “who stigmatize and oppress gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people for their own psychological, political, social, and financial gains, particularly when they have absolutely no Scriptural authority to do so,” are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” No one stigmatizes those who are LGBT for any of those reasons; we simply call on them to repent of their sins. Everything we do is with Scriptural authority. We are the sheep!

Maneker never came close to proving what he set out to demonstrate. One would not find enough nutrition in his fourteen points to sustain a lost soul for one day—let alone eternity. Mostly he set forth unproven hypotheses and called for people to believe as he does—in “faith only.” He attempted to re-define words and quoted human beings as often as he cited Scriptures. Some of those were even irrelevant.

He began by comparing those who disagreed with him as Nazis, and he ends on a similar “high” note. Here it is in its entirety.

So, next time you hear the utterances of homophobic clergy who appeal to the Bible to justify their prejudices, remember that they speak out of ignorance and/or hatefulness, and pay them no mind! They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and even many of them are too clueless to know that fact and, unfortunately, many of their followers are too gullible to see through their lies.

How much more fair-minded can a man be?