11: How Matthew Vines Appears Inconsistent in his Interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:10
The third New Testament passage: 1 Timothy 1:10 – yet another incomplete argument
When the presenter moves on to the 1 Timothy passage, he again invokes his earlier (doubtful) argument about the Greek word ‘arsenokoites’, as that word is also used in the Timothy passage. IE he claims that most translators are wrong to believe that this is a reference to homosexual sex as understood in our modern world. Again, why should we trust the presenter over the professionals? He then moves on, leaving this 1 Timothy passage behind. But we should note also that although English translations of this passage tend to refer to homosexuality being “contrary to sound doctrine”, the passage also lists other behaviours as being contrary to sound doctrine. These behaviours include “sexual immorality” (NIV). Yes, the Bible does indicate that some sexual behaviours are okay and some are not. It would seem that the presenter would prefer to ignore this though, opting instead for a late 1960s approach of “if it feels good, do it” (I note that society seemed to turn away from that degree of liberalism soon after the 60s though, deciding by the mid 70s that a more conservative approach was wiser).
Gagnon points out that St Paul’s more extensive vice lists tend to include sexual sin, eg 1 Cor. 6. And he points out that 1 Timothy 1:10 is drawn from Old Testament Law (see verses 8-9); IE the Leviticus references that a man should not sleep with a man. Want more analysis of what St Paul’s words really mean? Here’s an hour on Gagon on the topic, where he addresses a number of the points raised by Vines –