The More Scripture That Sprinkle Provides Commentary On, The Worse It Gets
In the first entry of this multi-part critique of Zondervan’s Upside-Down Kingdom study Bible, edited by Preston Sprinkle, I focused on his commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah and Christine Thorton’s commentary on “Women in Genesis.”
As a way of introduction to my critique and Sprinle’s entire project, I said:
“A few months ago, Zondervan published a study Bible edited by Preston Sprinkle, titled the Upside-Down Kingdom. The theological fidelity of Sprinkle’s writings, podcasts, and conferences have all been called into serious question in the past few years because of his teachings that same-sex attraction is not sin, and that ‘homosexual orientation’ contains God-glorifying elements.
When I saw he was editing a study Bible, I thought it would be helpful to the church to read and critique it. I assumed that the book largely would be good, with major disagreements only coming when Sprinkle discussed gender and sexuality.
I was wrong. He and his contributors did much more eisegesis than I expected.”
You can read the first article in its entirety here.
This second entry will focus on Preston Sprinkle’s commentary on the Song of Solomon and the Gospel of Matthew. I look briefly at one major flaw in Sprinkle’s treatment of the Song of Solomon and then highlight seven major exegetical and theological missteps with his treatment of the Gospel of Matthew.
Song of Solomon Does Not Give License to Lust
Commenting on the Song of Solomon, Sprinkle writes:
“Most likely, marriage is assumed throughout for at least three reasons. First, the Song is filled with images and themes from Genesis 1-3, where the first humans were naked and unashamed and married in the garden (Gen 2:25). Second, the genre of the Song is similar to other ancient love poetry, which has a marital context. It’s likely that ancients would recognize this familiar genre and not need to be reminded on every page that sex belongs within marriage. Third, we are given a few such reminders through the book (SS 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). Indeed, the bride’s ‘garden’ is ‘locked up’ (4:12), which suggests it will be unlocked when the two are married” (839).
Sprinkle is correct that the Song of Solomon was written about love and the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife. (It’s also an allegory about God’s close relationship with His people, as the study Bible argues on pg. 836).
But then a few pages later, Sprinkle shockingly uses Song of Solomon 4:1-5 to argue that Christians can enjoy and be enamored by the bodies of others to whom they are not married.
Song of Solomon 4:1-5 reads:
“Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which bear twins, and not one among them has lost its young. Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. Your neck is like the tower of David, built in rows of stone; on it hang a thousand shields, all of them shields of warriors. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that graze among the lilies.”
In this passage, the man is remarking on his wife’s beauty. He does not say these things to a stranger or a girlfriend but to his wife.
Yet, Sprinkle comments:
“The man details the physical beauty of the woman beginning with her head (SS 4:1-3) and slowly moving downward. He expounds upon her eyes, hair, teeth, lips, mouth, temples and neck, concluding with her breasts, which he says, ‘are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies’ (4:5; cf. 7:3).
The Bible condemns lust and having sex outside of a male/female marriage. But as seen here and throughout the Song, there’s nothing wrong with noticing, enjoying or even being enamored by the physical beauty of another person (emphasis added).
Throughout the Song, it is assumed that sex belongs in the context of marriage. But it’s unlikely that the man and woman only became sexually attracted to each other after they were married. Physical attraction is not the same as lust. Our bodies are good and beautiful, and God designed and formed our sexual anatomy and instilled in us sexual desire. Not every sexual desire is good, of course. And Scripture often warns against acting upon certain desires or pursuing sex in a time and place that God does not intend” (841).
This is another clear example of eisegesis from Sprinkle. His ministry is built on teaching that mindful same-sex lust and behavior are sin, but same-sex attraction is not sin and it “includes a virtuous desire to be intimate—in the David and Jonathan, or Jesus and John sense of the phrase—with people of the same sex.”1
He takes liberties with Scripture to defend his unbiblical positions, but he does not exegete the text.
He even contradicts what he previously said that the context for the Song of Solomon is marriage, by saying that a man can look at a woman he’s not married to and still enjoy and be enamored by her beauty, even her breasts, without lusting.
Seven Major Errors from Spinkle’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
He not only argues that enjoying or being enamored by a woman’s breasts to whom you’re not married is not lust, but he also makes similar arguments about Jesus’s words from His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:27-30. In this passage, Jesus says:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”
In Sprinkle’s commentary, he adds:
“Jesus intensifies the Old Testament’s prohibition against adultery [Ex 20:14] and says that a man who ‘looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ [Mt. 5:28]. In other words, it’s not simply the act of adultery that is wrong, but the posture of the heart that got him there. But—what exactly does it mean to look ‘at a woman lustfully’?
First, Jesus’ words are directed at men but certainly apply to women as well. It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to condemn heart-adultery among men but not among women. Second, the Greek phrase behind the word ‘lustfully’ can also be translated as ‘with the purpose to lust.’ There’s an intention behind the act, a desire to have sex with the woman. This is more than simply noticing a beautiful woman or man, taking note of their body, their hair, their smile. To feel a spike of excitement over the head-spinning beauty of another person isn’t necessarily lust, but it could lead to lust. However, if you’re not overcome with the desire to have sex with this person—and possibly taking steps to make those thoughts a reality—then you’re probably not committing the destructive sin Jesus is confronting.
We all should be vigilant to live holy lives and guard ourselves from sexual temptation. We should also resist the impulse to heap shame upon ourselves for recognizing beauty” (1236, 1238).
There are many exegetical and theological issues here. I will engage seven in particular.
First, contrary to Sprinkles’ claim, Jesus did not “intensify the Old Testament’s prohibition against adultery.”
Rather, Jesus taught the law as it was always intended by God to be taught, correcting the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus began his discussion of the sin of adultery by quoting the Seventh Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Matt 5:27), from Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18, to rebuke Pharisaical teaching that only the outward action of adultery is sin, not the inward lust.
The purpose of the law was not only to forbid the act of sin but also the inward desire to sin. The Tenth Commandment reads, “You shall not covet…you shall not desire” (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21). In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Greek word used for both “covet” and “desire” in the Tenth Commandment is epithumeó. This is the same Greek word Jesus used in Matthew 5:28 that is translated “lust.” Therefore, Jesus condemned adultery by combining both the Seventh and Tenth Commandments, condemning outward adultery and adultery in one’s heart. He quoted the law to rebuke the Pharisees’ teaching, not to “intensify” the law He quoted.
His goal was not to abolish the law, or correct the law, but to fulfill the law, as He said a few moments earlier in Matthew 5:17-20. Donald Hagner, Senior Professor of New Testament at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, notes:
“Since in 5:21–48, Jesus defines righteousness by expounding the true meaning of the law as opposed to wrong or shallow understandings, it is best to understand πληρῶσαι here as ‘fulfill’ in the sense of ‘bring to its intended meaning’—that is, to present a definitive interpretation of the law, something now possible because of the presence of the Messiah and his kingdom. Far from destroying the law, Jesus’ teachings—despite their occasionally strange sound—penetrate to the divinely intended (i.e., the teleological) meaning of the law. Because the law and the prophets pointed to him and he is their goal, he is able now to reveal their true meaning and so to bring them to ‘fulfillment.'”2
Hagner argues that Jesus came to rightly interpret the law, to fulfill the law. Each of Jesus’ statements, “You have heard it said…but I say to you…” (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34), refers to false interpretations of the law, not the law itself. The law is good (Matt 5:17-20). None of the law will pass away until “all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). As Hagner notes, Jesus is the goal of the law.
He continues: “Jesus’ words stress that the law is to be preserved not as punctiliously interpreted and observed by the Pharisees (although the language apart from the context could suggest such a perspective) but as definitively interpreted by Jesus the Messiah. That is, to follow the authoritative teaching of Jesus is to be faithful to the whole meaning of the law. Figuratively speaking, it is to uphold every ‘jot and tittle.'”3
Hagner reasons that Christ fulfilled the law through teaching it correctly. Yet, he also points out that in order for Jesus’ hearers to follow His perfect teaching of the law, they must uphold the law perfectly, every “jot and tittle.” This implies that Christ also lives the whole law’s precepts perfectly in heart and deed, making Him the goal of the law, which serves as the basis for His disciples to heed His teaching (David Turner also argues this in his commentary on Matthew).4
Moreover, this teaching of Jesus is also taught in the Old Testament, and by the apostle Paul in the New Testament. YHWH treats iniquity and sin the same in the Old Testament. He brings judgment and wrath for both and forgives both, as Exodus 34:6-9 clearly teaches:
“The Lord passed before him [Moses] and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. And he said, ‘If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.'”
YHWH forgives not only transgression and sin, but also iniquity. The Hebrew word for iniquity is awon. It means “perversity,” which is more than actions. It is a lack of righteousness, a twisted character against God, that incurs guilt.5
Returning to the New Testament, the apostle Paul said the same in Romans 4:7–8, when he wrote, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” In these verses, Paul quoted Psalm 32:1–2, which reads, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.” The Hebrew says, “counts no awon.”6
And when Paul quoted “counts no awon” from Psalm 32:2 in Romans 4:8, he wrote, “counts no hamartia,” that is, “sin,” probably quoting from the Septuagint. The Greek word hamartia means “a departure from either human or divine standards of uprightness; sin.” In both the Hebrew and the Greek, any lack of righteousness incurs guilt and is called “sin.”7 And hamartia is a Greek equivalent of the Hebrew awon according to Paul. Therefore, iniquity—being bent, twisted, or perverse in your heart, the lust of the flesh—is a form of sin, and is morally culpable.8
Additionally, Jesus taught this same truth positively when He quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 9:18 to say in Matthew 22:37-40, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Not only do we need forgiveness for having bent hearts against God, we also must love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and love our neighbors as ourselves. Anything in us that does not love God and our neighbor is sin.
And, to put it plainly, being enamored by a woman’s breasts who is not your wife is not loving God or your neighbor.
Second, Sprinkle wrongly argues that the purpose phrase Jesus used in Matthew 5:28, translated in the ESV as “with lustful intent” (pros to epithymēsai), shows that Christ does not condemn unintentional sexual desire but only condemns sexual desire that is “with the purpose to lust.”
Other theologians like Robert Gagnon and Matthew Lee Anderson try to prove this argument by saying that the same Greek construction is used in Matthew 6:1, which reads, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”9 The construction, pros to, is translated in the ESV as “in order.” Gagnon’s and Anderson’s point is that just as Jesus only condemns practicing one’s righteousness in order to be seen by others and does not condemn practicing one’s righteousness without intending to be seen by others, Jesus also only condemns looking at a woman with lustful intent and does not condemn looking at a woman with “unintentional” lust.10
Gagnon and Anderson misconstrue the similarity between Matthew 5:27–28 and Matthew 6:1. In Matthew 5:27–28 lust is condemned, but in Matthew 6:1, practicing one’s righteousness to be seen by others is condemned. If one takes “to be seen by others” away from “practicing one’s righteousness,” he fulfills the law. Christ’s disciples should practice righteousness (Matt 5:14-16). However, if one takes “intent” from Matthew 5:28, you still have the word epithymēsai, which can be a positive or a negative desire or longing, depending on the context.11 The context of Matthew 5:27–28 is adultery, which is negative.
Thus, when we remove the phrase “intentional,” pros to, we are still left with the word “lust,” epithymēsai. So, for Gagnon and Anderson to compare Matthew 5:28 to Matthew 6:1, they must compare “lust,” something God forbids, to “practicing righteousness in front of others,” something Jesus literally commands in Matthew 5:14-16, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
Obviously, lust and practicing one’s righteousness are not morally equivalent.
Third, Jesus clearly teaches that lustful intent is internal adultery.
From root to fruit, sin is the same from beginning to end, whether in our hearts or outward. Yet, Sprinkle says that “to feel a spike of excitement over the head-spinning beautify of another person isn’t necessarily lust.” He believes this is a holy desire, that he’s merely describing noticing God-designed beauty. But then he says that noticing beauty “could lead to lust,” which is a sin. That’s not what the Bible teaches about how sin begins in one’s heart. Sin does not begin as holiness or righteousness in one’s heart. Rather, James says that sin begins as lust (James 1:14), and Paul says it begins in our flesh, and the flesh is sin (Rom 7:7-9; 11, 13-14, 17, 20, 23).
Thus, we must always affirm that sin begins as sin, not as righteousness, not as God’s design, and not as “noticing beauty.”
The same truth applies to the desires of righteousness. They always come from the Spirit and always lead to holiness. They do not come from lust. And no one sins because they were acting on holy, godly desires. No.
What happens is that, in the midst of holy desires, the flesh produces new desires that are contrary to God (James 1:2–15), and instead of continuing to walk in the Spirit, we choose to walk in the flesh (Gal 5:16–25). But Sprinkle thinks that the desires of the Spirit can become sin and fleshly desires can become holy. Yet, Scripture teaches that there are desires of the flesh and desires of the Spirit and these two are opposed to one another (Rom 7; Gal 5:16–25).
Fourth, Sprinkle teaches that Jesus used “with the purpose to lust” to condemn lustful intent and not to condemn unintentional lust.
This is a logical fallacy, an argument from silence. Because if “with the purpose to lust” is removed from the verse, the Greek words that are left, blepōn gynaika, mean to “look at a woman.” There is nothing of sexual desire in the meaning of these Greek words.12 Therefore, “unintentional sexual desire” is not mentioned in this passage. It is a category that Sprinkle created—not Jesus. Yet, he claims that Christ only condemned intentional lust not unintentional. He cannot make this argument from these verses that Jesus did not condemn unintentional lust, for unintentional lust is not mentioned.
Fifth, although the Greek phrase pros to always means “with intent,” it does not mean the “unintentional” is not also condemned.
Jesus does not always use the Greek phrase pros to, with intent, when defining sin. For example, in Mark 13:22, Jesus uses the same phrase as in Matthew 5:28, pros to, saying, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” The ESV translates pros to as “to,” before “lead astray.”
Following Sprinkle’s logic, in Mark 13:22, Jesus only condemned false christs and false prophets performing signs and wonders if they intend to lead people astray, but Jesus did not condemn false christs and false prophets unintentionally leading people astray. This interpretation, of course, is preposterous. Just as there is no “unintentional” category for leading people away from Christ, provided by Jesus in Mark 13, there is no “unintentional” category for lust either given by Jesus in Matthew 5.
Furthermore, in Mark 13:6, a mere sixteen verses earlier, Jesus said a similar statement without the purpose phrase, “Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.” The purpose phrase evidently was not necessary to say that leading people away from Christ is sin, whether intentional or not, even though Christ adds the phrase sixteen verses later in Mark 13:22. Therefore, just as Jesus adding “intentional” to “leading astray” does not indicate “unintentional leading astray” is good, neutral, or not sin, Jesus adding “intentional” to “lust” does not indicate “unintentional lust” is good, neutral, or not sin either, contrary to Sprinkle.
Sixth, Jesus included the purpose phrase of “with the purpose to” lust to properly teach the law and to show how He fulfilled the law.
Jesus had no lustful inclinations, thoughts, or actions. He looked at all women as His sisters, neither as objects of lust, nor as potential spouses. He did not teach that the law required something less than His own holiness, as if unintentional lust is not sin. He preached a few verses earlier in the same sermon, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8). In the Sermon on the Mount, He preached full obedience to the law in both heart and action. Christ distinguished looking at a sister from looking at a woman with lust in your heart in Matthew 5:27–30. He told his hearers they can look upon a woman, that is, see a woman with their eyes, but they may not look at her with lust in their hearts.
Seventh, Jesus emphasized His point, that inward lust is adultery, by arguing in Matthew 5:29-30, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”
To make Himself even more clear, Christ hyperbolically referred to eliminating the source of lustful intent. He did not refer to cutting off one’s head, where planning to commit adultery takes place, or one’s genitals, but one’s right eye and right hand. This is a move from the action to the cause of the action. He spoke of cutting out one’s right eye, the best eye, the source of the lustful intent, the tempter, of an evil lustful gaze. Then, he referenced the right hand, the best hand.13
Understanding these verses concerning rebuking the inward sinful inclination or temptation is even clearer in a similar passage in Matthew 18:7-9: “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”
Jesus tied the command against temptation directly to tempting oneself by moving from condemning the tempter to telling the sinner to cut off his hand or foot, and to tear out his eye, if they tempted him. Jesus’ disciples should reject the world’s temptations. And the world should take heed, fearing God’s wrath before they seek to tempt Jesus’ disciples. However, it is not merely the world that Christians should fear but their own sinful temptations that stem from their flesh (hand, foot, and eye). Turner argues,
Failure to deal radically with sinful proclivities indicates that one is in danger of punishment in hellfire (cf. 3:10–12; 5:22; 25:41). As grotesque as these images of amputation and gouging are, the prospect of eternal punishment is far worse. This language is hypothetical as well as hyperbolic (cf. 5:29–30). Ridding oneself of one’s hands, feet, and eyes would not reach the root of sin, the heart (15:18–20). The point is, rather, that one must deal radically with one’s sinful tendencies (cf. Prov. 4:23–27; Rom. 13:11–14).14
Turner is right about Christ’s point being that one must deal radically with his sinful tendencies. Christ’s hyperbolic response to inward temptation is drastic, but no more radical than his warning to the man that tempts his disciples: “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6). Whether temptation comes from your own hand or eye or from without, Christ’s followers must reject it in a radical way for the sake of rejecting hell as well.
Hagner helpfully argues:
“Because of the importance of obeying God’s standard of righteousness, radical action should be taken to avoid the cause of the temptation. The discipleship of the kingdom sometimes requires drastic measures. The literal plucking out of an eye or cutting off of a hand, however, will not at all necessarily rid one of the problem. The culprit lies elsewhere, in the heart, the inner person. This is the language of hyperbole (contra Gundry) used to make a significant point.”15
Christ is serious about temptations, whether they come from the world or the flesh of believers. As Hagner notes, Christ demanded an exaggerated drastic response—drown the tempter or cut off the flesh that tempts. His point is not literal since no disciple cut out his eye or cut off his hand in response to Christ’s sermon. Rather, as Hagner mentions, He rebuked his hearers’ passive justification of the source of temptation to evil. By only declaring the outward act as adulterous, the Pharisees were passively declaring that lustful intent in one’s heart fulfills the requirement of God in his law.
Conclusion
In a similar manner, by Sprinkle claiming that only “chosen” lustful thoughts are adulterous, he is passively declaring that his right hand, right foot, or right eye can tempt him to sin, and he can have “unchosen” lustful thoughts or be enamored by a woman’s breasts to whom he’s not married, and still fulfill the law, exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, and imitate Christ since Christ is the goal of the law.
That’s a terrible mishandling of Scripture that sends the deceived running to the mirror to say, “I’m like Jesus,” when the truth is what they are really saying is “I’m like the Pharisees.”
Run to Jesus, not the mirror, and not to Sprinkle.
- Preston Sprinkle, “Is Same-Sex Attraction Sinful?” December 1, 2014, https://theologyintheraw.com/is-same-sex-attraction-sinful/. ↩︎
- Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary 33A, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 106. ↩︎
- Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 106. ↩︎
- David L. Turner, Matthew, of Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 164. ↩︎
- Rolf Knierim, “awon,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 2, eds. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2: 861–866. ↩︎
- Knierim, “awon,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 2, 2: 861–866. ↩︎
- Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 44. ↩︎
- Knierim, “awon,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2: 861–866. ↩︎
- Matthew Lee Anderson, “Sex, Temptation, and the Gay Christian: What Chastity Demands,” accessed November 23, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20231001162846/https://mereorthodoxy.com/sex-temptation-gay-christian-chastity-demands. ↩︎
- Anderson, “Sex, Temptation, and the Gay Christian: What Chastity Demands,” https://mereorthodoxy.com/sex-temptation-gay-christian-chastity-demands/. ↩︎
- Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th Ed., BDAG, ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2021), 327–328. ↩︎
- Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 157. ↩︎
- Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 120-21. ↩︎
- Turner, Matthew, 438. ↩︎
- Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 121.
↩︎
