Homosexuality: Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness: Matthew Vines Takes on the New Testament

Immoral gender symbols, sexual orientation: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality. Rejected by scripture (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Author: Denny Burk

Matthew Vines’s treatment of New Testament texts about homosexuality focuses on three passages: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In doing so, however, he fails to account for the larger context of Scripture and its teaching on marriage and sexuality. 

Instead, he writes at length trying to disprove the notion that any of these verses really condemns what we now call homosexuality. Against a 2,000-year-old consensus within the Christian church, Vines contends that these verses do not mean what they appear to mean — that homosexuality is fallen and sinful and completely incompatible with following Christ. Vines argues that if these verses were properly understood, everyone would see that there’s nothing inherently sinful about homosexual orientation or behavior. Thus, there is no biblical reason to prevent “gay Christians” from entering into the covenant of marriage with a same-sex partner. Gay couples can fulfill the marital norms of Ephesians 5 just like their heterosexual counterparts.

A Subversive Hermeneutic from Matthew 7:15-16

Vines’s argument is hobbled at the outset by a subversive hermeneutic. It is no exaggeration to say that Vines’s read­ing of Scripture is an agenda in search of an interpretation. Hermeneutically speaking, the tail is wagging the dog in Vines’s work. He simply assumes that the texts cannot mean anything negative about homosexuality. In an ironic twist, he bases his assumption on Matthew 7:15-16 — a text warning about false teachers, “You will know them by their fruits” (all Scripture references in this chapter, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New American Standard Bible 1977). Because opposing homosexuality harms homosexuals in his view (a bad fruit), the traditional texts must be reinterpreted in a way that is no longer harmful to gay people.

Not only is Vines’s approach a gross misinterpretation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7,1 it is also an uncritical use of an ethical theory called consequentialism. Consequential-ism bases moral judgments on the consequences that accrue to human actions.2 No human action is inherently good or evil in this theory, only its consequences. Thus one must not pronounce judgment on human actions, only on the conse­quences that flow from those actions.

The problem with this theory is that it elevates our eval­uation of consequences above Scripture as the standard for evaluating what is right and wrong. Also, consequentialism provides no objective definition of what defines a good or a bad consequence. A good consequence for one person may be a bad consequence for another.3

Nevertheless, this is exactly how Vines approaches the issue of homosexuality in his book. He alleges a variety of negative consequences that flow from calling homosexu­ality a sin. We must, therefore modify and reinterpret the Bible so that people no longer feel badly about its sexual ethic. That is why Vines has no problem sweeping away the 2,000-year-old consensus of the Christian church.

That consensus understanding of Scripture causes some people to feel badly, so it must be done away with. I agree with Richard Hays’ comments on this approach to ethical rea­soning: “How strikingly indifferent is the New Testament … to consequentialist ethical reasoning. The New Testament teaches us to approach ethical issues not by asking ‘What will happen if I do x?’ but rather by asking ‘What is the will of God?’”4

Matthew 7:15-16 does have a warning for us, but not the one that Vines alleges. It warns us to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. In this instance, Vines is concealing the wolf of consequentialism in the clothing of Matthew 7. In doing so, he misleads readers so that they feel they are doing the right thing when they suppress the message of key texts: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Ephesians 5:21-33. Readers would do well not to be taken in by his efforts.

Suppressing the Truth in Romans 1:26-27

Vines rightly identifies Romans 1:26-27 as the “most signif­icant biblical passage in this debate” (96). Nevertheless, he begins his exposition by telling readers that “these words of Paul have long haunted gay people” (95). Again, he misleads readers by arguing that these verses cannot mean what they appear to mean because the words “haunt” gay people. On this basis, he offers a revisionist interpretation, arguing that readers no longer have to choose between af­firming same-sex relationships and affirming the authority of the Bible (96). His reading pretends that Christians can affirm both.

Vines admits that Paul’s words about same-sex behavior are all negative, but Vines rejects the notion that Paul is rul­ing out all same-sex behavior. In Vines’s own words:

Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of a same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation … he wasn’t ad­dressing what we think of today as homosexuality.

The context in which Paul discussed same-sex re­lations differs so much from our own that it can­not reasonably be called the same issue. Same-sex behavior condemned as excess doesn’t translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation — or as a loving expression of that orientation (105-106, emphasis original).

Vines tries to show from a variety of historical sources that the issue Paul opposed was excessive lust, not homo­sexuality per se. Vines’s argument depends on the specious claim that Paul did not know about same-sex orientation and therefore could only have been referring to certain kinds of excessively lustful homosexual acts. This view is a modified version of a thesis advanced by John Boswell and which has been decisively refuted by Robert Gagnon.5

Nevertheless, Vines’s modification still relies on the faulty assumption that Paul was unaware of sexual orienta­tion. To be sure, Paul did not use the term “orientation,” but that does not mean that he was unaware of the concept.6 The American Psychological Association defines sexual orienta­tion as “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.”7 Notice that orientation involves a person’s enduring sexual attrac­tions and that sexual attraction is a virtual synonym for sexual desire.8 Thus sexual orientation is one’s persistent pattern of sexual desire/attraction toward either or both sexes.

If that is the definition, then the term “orientation” does not somehow take us to a category that Paul fails to address. Paul says that our sexual desires/attractions have a moral component and that we are held accountable for them. Look carefully at Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26-27.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing in­decent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

To be sure, Paul says that homosexual behavior is sinful. But he also says that the desires/attractions themselves are equally morally blameworthy and stand as evidence of God’s wrath against sin: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions … and [they] burned in their desire toward one another” (Rom 1:26-27). Sexual desire that fixates on the same sex is sinful, and that is why God’s judgment rightly falls on both desires and actions. Again, the issue Paul addresses is not merely sexual behavior but also same-sex attraction.

Paul says that homosexuality is sinful because it goes “against nature” (Rom 1:26-27, author’s translation). Vines gets around this obstacle by redefining what “na­ture” means. For him, nature is a reference to patriarchy, and the reason homosexuality is “against nature” is that it does not conform to patriarchal gender roles (108-111). But this definition completely misunderstands what Paul means by the word “nature.” 

For Paul, nature is not defined by secular sources (as Vines suggests) but by the Old Testa­ment. In fact, there are numerous linguistic links between Romans 1:26-27 and the creation narratives of Genesis 1-2. For example, Paul’s use of the relatively unusual words thelys for females and arsen for males strongly suggests he is relying on the creation account of Genesis 1 where the same two words are used.9 These two terms accent the sex­ual differences between males and females and suggest that homosexual relationships violate God’s creational intent.10 Thus for Paul, “against nature” means that homosexuality goes against God’s original design.

The bottom line is this: Vines interprets the text to mean that homosexuality is only wrong when it is based on exces­sive lust and when it defies patriarchy. Since committed mo­nogamous gay relationships violate neither of these norms,11 he argues, there is nothing in this text to prevent same-sex couples from entering into such a relationship. Neverthe­less, this interpretation relies on a number of exegetical and historical implausibilities and is driven by a hermeneutical prejudice against what the text plainly means. Contrary to Vines, Paul has adopted the sexual ethic of the Old Testa­ment, which condemns homosexuality in all its dimensions.12

Redefining Terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Vines confesses that he is not a linguist (117), but he never­theless dives headlong into revisionist interpretation of key Pauline terms on homosexuality — arsenokoitēs and mala­kos. Malakos appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and arsenokoitēs appears in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor homosexuals [arse­nokoitēs], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunk­ards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals [arsenokoitēs] and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching (1 Tim 1:9-10).

Taken together, these texts render an unambiguous judg­ment on these two terms. They are both sinful. That is why Vines questions whether English translations have rightly cap­tured the meaning of these words. He argues that the terms do not refer to homosexuality in general but to excessive lust and pederasty (same-sex relations between a man and a boy). 

According to Vines, therefore, every translation that suggests Paul opposes homosexuality generally is in error. Paul only means to oppose exploitative same-sex relationships.13

Vines has again adopted a revisionist translation that fails on a number of levels. It may very well be true that Paul’s Greco-Roman context was dominated by the practice of pederasty. It is an illogical reduction, however, to shoehorn Paul’s use of these two terms into that narrow frame. Paul is not drawing on his Greco-Roman context in his use of these terms. In fact, the term arsenokoitēs appears nowhere else in Greek literature until Paul coins the term here. There were other words for homosexual behavior, but Paul did not choose them. Rather, he coined a term that derives from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koitēn.14

In other words, Paul’s sexual ethic is once again based entirely on his Jewish tradition whose Scriptures were unam­biguously opposed to all forms of homosexual behavior, not just exploitative ones. As one pair of commentators put it,

Paul opposed homosexual behavior on the basis of creation theology and because it is marked as a vice in the Torah and was stressed as a vice by Jews. Paul’s opposition to all homosexual behavior … seems to derive from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which represent absolute bans.15

Vines has an undue fascination with Paul’s Greco-Roman context to the near exclusion of his Jewish identity. Time and again, Paul quotes from the Jewish Scriptures as the basis for his views. This is certainly the case in 1 Corinthians and especially in this section, which is freighted with material on sexual ethics. In chapter 5, Paul appeals to Leviticus 18 in his comments on an incestuous relationship. 

Later in chapter 6, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 to admonish men in the congre­gation who were visiting prostitutes. Likewise, in this text, Paul is alluding again to Leviticus to establish the sinfulness of homosexuality. The wider context of 1 Corinthians and its intertextual connections to the Old Testament make this clear. Paul uses the terms malakos and arsenokoitēs to refer to the active and passive partners in a homosexual encounter. Like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Paul identifies both halves of a homosexual coupling as sinful.16 Paul prohibits all forms of sexual relationships between same-sex couples.17 But Vines’s myopic focus on two words and their Greco-Roman context leads him to miss this point entirely.

Distorting the Gospel in Ephesians 5:21-33

There is perhaps no more important text on the meaning and purpose of marriage than Ephesians 5:21-33. And Vines understands that its traditional interpretation stands in the way of his revision of marriage. So Vines invokes the text with the stated intent of subverting its traditional render­ing. Vines recognizes that the text presents marriage as a “mystery” that symbolizes Christ’s union with his bride, the church. 

Nevertheless, he argues that same-sex unions can symbolize Christ’s marriage as well as heterosexual ones. To do so, he reduces the norm of marriage to permanence. As long as same-sex couples stay together in a relationship of mutual self-giving, they honor Christ as well as any hetero­sexual couple (137).

The primary problem with this view is that it understates Paul’s specific appeal to Genesis 2:24 to explain the mean­ing of marriage: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (Eph 5:31). Yes, the norm of marriage involves a permanent commitment. But it also involves more than that. Genesis 1-2 establishes at least seven norms for marriage: marriage is covenantal, sexual, procreative, het­erosexual, monogamous, non-incestuous and symbolic of the gospel.18 To miss any one of these elements is to distort the meaning of marriage, and Vines misses six of them.

Yes, marriage is covenantal (as Vines acknowledges). But that covenant is irreducibly heterosexual. That is why Jesus defines the marriage covenant in Matthew 19 as a mo­nogamous heterosexual union: “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh ‘?” (Matt 19:4-5). Again, this fundamental biblical reality is absent in Vines’s book.

Conclusion

When I read Vines’s treatment of Scripture, I am reminded of the words of liberal New Testament scholar Luke Timo­thy Johnson:

I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through ap­peals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exeget­ical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? ... I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experi­ence and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.19

In spite of claims to the contrary, Vines’s conclusions are not really all that different from Johnson’s. Vines has rejected the straightforward commands of Scripture. He just does not want to admit that this is indeed what he has done. He wants to give an appearance that he is still in the evangelical fold. But make no mistake. He is not. As he gives lip-service to biblical authority and to the need for salvation, his sheep costume looks really convincing. But do not miss that there really is a wolf concealed within — one that would like to devour as many sheep as possible with a Bible-denying, judgment-inducing error. The stakes really are that high.

ENDNOTES

1 The “fruit” metaphor appears a number of times in Matthew’s gospel. Contrary to Vines, it does not signify bad outcomes generically. In the metaphor, fruit grows from a root. If a root is evil, then so will its fruit be evil. In Matthew 3:8, “fruit” symbolizes behavior that comes from a repentant heart. In Matthew 12:33, “fruit” stands for blasphemous words which flow from an “evil” heart. In Matthew 13:8, 23, it signifies “a lifestyle which responds to the preaching of the word” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 291). The good or bad quality of the fruit is determined solely by its conformity to God’s revelation in Christ, not by any particular sinner’s subjective impression of it (as Vines has it). Furthermore, Vines’s misuse of Matthew 7:15-16 would create ethical anarchy if applied consistently. To wit: It may cause someone personal distress and psychological “harm” to tell them that they should not murder their neighbor. That would be a “bad fruit” on Vines’s definition. Nevertheless, no one would permit murder just to avoid that “bad fruit.” 

2 Vines writes: “Do the destructive consequences of long-held views among Christians warrant a reinterpretation of Scripture?... Sadly, negative attitudes toward gay relationships have led to crippling depression, torment, suicide, and alienation from God and the church. I suggested that, if for no other reason, those destructive consequences should compel Christians to take a closer look at the relevant Scripture passages” (24-25). 

3 Denny Burk, What Is the Meaning of Sex? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 27-28. 

4 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 455.

5 Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nash­ville, TN: Abingdon, 2001), 380-92. 

6 The following discussion follows closely my argument in Denny Burk, “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?,” Canon & Culture, February 18, 2014, http://www.canonandculture.com/ is-homosexual-orientation-sinful/. 

7 “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality,” American Psychological Association, 2008, http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/ sexual-orientation.aspx. The DSM-4 defines sexual orientation as “erotic attraction to males, females, or both.” See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th, TR (Wash­ington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), 535. 

8 In this essay, I treat sexual attraction as a synonym for sexual desire. I believe this is justified by common usage of these terms in the literature. For example, Hollinger says that persons with homosexual orientation experience “ongoing affectional and sexual feelings toward persons of the same sex” (Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex, 172). Likewise, Grenz describes homosexual orientation as “the situation in which erotic feelings are nearly exclusively trig­gered by persons of one’s own sex” (Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 225). See also Jenell Williams Paris’ book in which orientation, attraction, and desire are all three used as virtual synonyms (Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011], 99). 

9 I am of course referring to the Greek version of the Old Testament. See Schreiner, “A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality,” 66. See also Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 290-91. 

10 See Schreiner, “A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality,” 66. 

11 In a later chapter, Vines argues that Paul’s patriarchy is rendered obsolete by the gospel. See pp. 141-43. 12 G.J. Wenham, “The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality,” The Expository Times 102, no. 

12 (1991): 363: “Israel’s repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation … St Paul’s comment that homosexual acts are ‘contrary to nature’ (Rom 1:26) is thus probably very close to the thinking of the Old Testament writers.” 

13 Again, Vines’s argument is not original. For the most part, he is popularizing the views of Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contempo­rary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 14 E.g., Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1997),


97: “Although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul’s use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for ‘one who lies with a male [as with a woman]’” (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). 15 Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testa­ment Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 242.

Related articles

• Matthew Vines Won't Rest in Defending Gay Christians (nytimes.com)
• Does the Bible support loving homosexual relationships? (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com)
• My Thoughts on Homosexuality!! (officialfantasy.wordpress.com)
• Christians Trained to Convince Churches to Re-Interpret Scriptures (mdbpnews.wordpress.com)
• The Biblical Case for Gay Marriage (queeringthechurch.com)
• Why Do Christians Care about World Vision's Marriage Policy? (str.typepad.com)
• Here is another vision from World Vision - we will not hire married homsexuals (resurrectionjoy.wordpress.com)
• The Matthew Vines video ~ and a response (standupforthetruth.com)
• Matthew Vines' Reformation Strategy: Will it reshape the visible church? (standupforthetruth.com)
• "God and the Gay Christian" by Matthew Vines: A Review (dailyqueernews.wordpress.com)