The Ludicrous Eisegesis Behind Pro-Gay Revisionism
There’s a general rule I always post to social media whenever I get the chance: “Exegesis bears the fruit of sound doctrine. Eisegesis bears the fruit of heresy.” Exegesis is actually reading the Bible word-for-word and letting it interpret itself. Eisegesis is when the reader smuggles his or her own biases into his or her Bible study. The former is rooted in humility; the latter is rooted in pride — and anything rooted in pride must be treated with contempt. Why? Well, this here is the most common example. There are three eisegetical arguments that are posited by revisionists like Matthew Vines who go to great lengths to deny the sinfulness of homosexuality, and now it’s time to tackle all three of them. So let’s get started, shall we?
1. No, Romans 1 Isn’t Just About Pederasty
Whenever the point is made that Paul, in Romans 1:26-27, alluded to the sinfulness of this act, people will often hide behind the Greek and claim, with absolutely no evidence, that the Greek original was about male-on-male pedophilia, often referred to as pederasty. Well, let’s look at the Greek for Romans 1:27, shall we? (emphasis added)
ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες
The boldfaced part is key. Both of those Greek words — “ἄρσενες” and “ἄρσεσιν” respectively — are declensions of “ἄρρην” which is the plural form of “ανήρ,” the word for “man.” The Greek word for “boy” is “αγόρι” so if this was really talking about pederasty then it would read “ἄρσενες ἐν αγόρην” instead. The fact that it doesn’t renders this reasoning purely eisegetical — and if it’s eisegetical then it’s automatically heretical by extension.
2. No, Jesus Wasn’t Silent On This
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.
Matthew 19:4-6 HCSB
This argument that Jesus is making with the Pharisees here hinges on two premises. One of the premises is a quote of Genesis 1:27, where the Hebrew makes it emphatically clear that there are only 2 genders. The other is a quote of Genesis 2:24, where the Hebrew makes it emphatically clear that the “one flesh” union can only happen between one man and one woman. Jesus then uses these assumptions to say that if a man and his wife are united by God then they cannot be separated by man. In summary, this argument that Jesus uses with the Pharisees follows this syllogism:
1. According to Genesis 1:27, God created mankind male and female
2. According to Genesis 2:24, when one man and one woman come together, they become one flesh
3. Therefore, man must not separate what God has joined together
If Premise 1 (verse 4) is false, this whole argument collapses — yet that’s exactly what self-proclaimed “Christian” revisionists who insist that transgenderism isn’t a sin are blasphemously suggesting. If Premise 2 (verse 5) is false, this whole argument collapses — yet that’s exactly what self-proclaimed “Christian” revisionists who insist that homosexuality isn’t a sin are blasphemously suggesting. Is transgenderism a sin or is this whole argument from Jesus baseless? Is homosexuality a sin or is this whole argument from Jesus baseless? These people don’t know it, but by denying the sinfulness of homosexuality and transgenderism, “progressive Christians” like Vines are, in effect, calling Jesus a liar by attempting to undermine this argument of His.
3. No, You Weren’t Born That Way
People have tried searching for a “gay gene” for decades and have come up empty every time. That’s no accident. It’s because, time and time again in Scripture, we’re told that there isn’t any mere mortal in history who was ever sinless except Jesus. When people claim to be “born that way” what they are in effect saying is “Oh, I’m just going to embrace the fact that I’m a sinner and not let the Holy Spirit change me.” There’s a term for that in Scripture: it’s called pride. Pride is the only sin capable of turning angels into demons. Pride is the sin that turned Lucifer into Satan and got him cast out of heaven.
If even angels can be blinded into an unforgivable state by pride, then you better believe that humans also can, and that’s exactly what has happened to most of the LGBT+ community. Why do they hold “pride parades”? Because they’re not only sinning but proud of the fact that they’re doing so. Why do they have a “pride month”? Because they’re not only sinning but proud of the fact that they’re doing so.
When they do this, they’re combining two sins: homosexuality and the pride thereof — and it’s the pride thereof that’s creating this false sense of identity that they’re then using as an excuse to continue in this harmful behavior. Everything they do is about attempting to lie that the greatest vice of them all — pride — is a virtue when it clearly isn’t. They’re calling evil good and good evil — which is exactly what the prophet Isaiah said “woe” to in Isaiah 5:20. In order to truly be a believer your identity must be in Christ, NOT in your sexuality. Claiming to be “born that way” is putting your sexual temptations (keep in mind, temptations only become sins if you give into them) ahead of God, and what does the Bible call that? Oh, right, it’s called idolatry. You effectively put a lowercase-god — namely, your sexual temptations — before the all-powerful Great “I Am” who demonstrably created this universe ex nihilo and make a graven image out of your own feelings whenever you make this claim.
Yes, homosexuality itself is forgivable — but NOT if you’re proud of it. If you want an example of someone who has been forgiven of homosexuality, look no further that Christopher Yuan. I had the honor and privilege of hearing him speak at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa in September 2019 during the Stand to Reason reTHINK (now Reality) apologetics conference. Spent years rebelling against God and partaking in all kinds of debauchery, even throwing a Bible in the trash, only to end up in prison on drug charges — so when he got out, he went home, dug that Bible out of the garbage, and actually started reading it the way it was intended to be read: with humility. As a result, he repented, got baptized, became a Christian, and began to not only completely depart from this lifestyle but also speak against it.
If you want to repent of homosexuality and be forgiven for it, then you must follow Christopher Yuan’s example. Leave it all behind, and, as Jesus says, “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me.” If you claim to follow Jesus but don’t deny yourself, that’s a problem. Oh, and don’t tell me the Old and New Testaments disagree with each other on this or any other sins either — when Jesus told all believers to “deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Me” He was both reiterating and clarifying the first of the Ten Commandments. As Jesus also claimed in Matthew 5, “I have come not to destroy but to fulfill.” The fact that Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament means that the validity of what Jesus quoted from must never be questioned by anyone who purports to be a Christian. That’s called Marcionism and it’s one of the oldest heresies in church history.
The applicability of Old Testament passages without New Testament equivalents, however, is a different story — if the New Testament doesn’t reiterate or reaffirm it, then it’s merely descriptive of times BC, not prescriptive for us today. That’s why socialism is completely inconsistent with Scripture — in order to justify it, many “progressive Christians” literally assume that the Temple Tax applies today, in willful ignorance of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:21 about what is Caesar’s vs what is God’s and therefore also in willful ignorance of the fact that the job of giving to the impoverished is God’s job, NOT Caesar’s job, as evidenced by the fact that the church, NOT Caesar, were the ones helping the impoverished in the First Century. Taking God’s job and giving it to Caesar is giving to Caesar what is God’s and therefore a blatant violation of this.