If you were to have a debate with a fellow believer who holds that same-sex marriages are healthy and good then you are bound to hear the argument that Jesus Christ never felt compelled to speak on the subject and therefore such unions are permissible. Though is that really true? In the most narrow sense it is true, but through a little exegesis, along with circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that Jesus admonished same-sex relationships.

An Argument From Silence

The first piece of evidence has to do with the argument from silence fallacy. These kinds of arguments treat an absence of evidence as evidence themselves. An example of this might be, “Gee, no one has ever criticized my preaching so I must be a great preacher with nothing else to learn!” Just because no one has had the heart to point out certain flaws in someone’s preaching does not mean that those flaws are not present.

Often people will assume that just because Jesus remained largely silent on the issue of homosexuality that He must have been impartial or even approved of such relationships. Though this line of argumentation quickly breaks down when we recognize the argument for the fallacy it really is by examining it with a modest amount of scrutiny.

First, Jesus did not need to specifically condemn homosexuality because in first-century Judaism everyone understood that homosexuality was unlawful. There was no need for Jesus to waste precious time reiterating something that was clearly and universally understood among the Jewish people. If Jesus’ silence means anything then it is more likely that He was silent on homosexuality, not because there was no condemnation in the behavior, but because there was nothing left to add to the levitical law that the people did not already understand.

Second, Jesus and the Bible as a whole are silent on a number of issues such as rape and molestation yet we can make Scriptural and logical inferences to discern that such behaviors are sinful. However, if advocates for homosexuality follow their argument to its logical conclusion then any moral subject that Jesus did not specifically address is morally permissible which is absurd on its face.

Jesus Addresses Homosexuality

Jesus may not have addressed homosexuality explicitly but He did so implicitly. On two separate occasions Jesus alluded to heteronormative relationships.

First, Jesus championed the model for marriage that is explained in Genesis 1-2. During a discussion on divorce in Mark 10:1-12 the Lord quotes Genesis 1:27 and says, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mk. 10:6). Next Jesus adds commentary on the passage by explaining, “The two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mk. 10:8-9).

If Jesus ever needed an opening to correct or reverse the prohibition of same-sex relationships it must have been here. He took the time to correct a misunderstanding about divorce and could have easily mentioned marriage in a generic non-gendered way, or even specifically commented on homosexuality, but that is not what He did. Instead of emphasizing tolerance for such relationships he further stressed that the only ordained and acceptable sexual relationships open to people are monogamous heterosexual marriages as planned “from the beginning of creation.”

Second, with a little exegesis it becomes evident that Jesus did make references to homosexuality as a sin. In Mark 7:20-22 Jesus says, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, self-indulgence, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.“

The Greek word used for “sexual immoralities” is porneia which is where we get the English word for ‘porn.’ In the days of the New Testament this word was an all-encompassing word for sexual sins such as incest, adultery, and homosexuality. Without question those who heard Jesus mention this word would have understood all the forbidden sexual sins which most certainly included homosexuality. Jesus did not need to specifically mention homosexuality as a sin because it was baked in the cake whenever He spoke about sexual immorality just like incest, bestiality, or adultery.

Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity

In AD 85 there was a man born in Sinope named Marcion. He was the son of a bishop and an intelligent and headstrong man. Unfortunately he was one of those rare individuals that the Greek and Latin Churches united to condemn as a heretic. His trouble was that he refused to believe that the God of the Old Testament, who unleashed judgment and wrath upon rebellious sinners, could be the Father of Jesus Christ. So, he promptly disregarded the entire Old Testament and merely acknowledged parts of Luke’s Gospel and edited versions of Paul’s epistles until he ultimately contrived a faith that made him comfortable.

Marcion detested the notion that people would experience wrath and punishment for their sins and therefore altered the Bible to focus on human exceptionalism. He wanted a faith full of love and joy and refused to entertain anything that smacked of laws and God’s anger or ideas that made him uncomfortable. His answer was to reinterpret and redefine God the Father and God the Son. He split them in two claiming the Old Testament God was evil and the New Testament God was good. Some things never change.

The problem with the claim that Jesus never touched on the subject of homosexuality is that Jesus is the second divine Person in the Trinity. In simple terms the Trinity entails three divine Persons in one God. To separate God into parts (i.e., three different gods) is a heresy known as tritheism. In other words, when the levitical laws were instituted they were instituted by Jesus Christ as much as the Father and the Spirit. The divine Persons do not disagree on anything but are of one accord on everything as one God.

To suggest that Jesus never said a word or had particular thoughts on homosexuality is to fall into a pattern of thinking that is not all too different than Marcion. People more or less divorce Jesus from the Holy Trinity because they too only want to accept the easy and comfortable parts of Scripture while disregarding the standards that Jesus inaugurated since the beginning of time.

The bottom line is that if God the Father forbade homosexuality then so did Jesus Christ. They are one.

The Apostle of Jesus Christ

Another error in the argument of Jesus’ silence on homosexuality is the lack of respect given to Paul. Those who are unhappy with God’s expectations for marriage often dismiss Paul as a misguided and fallible human being who was right on some things and wrong on other things. The only person whose opinion matters they say is Jesus Christ who was seemingly silent on the issue.

The problem with such a position is that it completely ignores the fact that Paul was divinely called to be an apostle by Jesus Christ and subsequently empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the letters he wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit and endorsed by Jesus Christ who called him. The New Testament is not a collection of Paul’s opinions but divinely inspired messages from God to people through Paul. So, to reject Paul’s admonitions, who Jesus anointed, is to reject Jesus.

The reader may also consider that if we cannot trust Paul who was called by Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit, who was also endorsed by the other disciples (Gal. 2:9), who was driven and blessed and full of such purpose that he started many influential churches and dedicated every moment of his life to the Kingdom of God, then how can we trust ourselves, or anyone else for that matter, when it comes to discerning the will of God? We are more likely to be in error then the great apostle.

The Voice of Christ Through Creation

The final way that Jesus speaks on the subject of homosexuality is through the voice of creation. The creation of human bodies are most assuredly created by Jesus Christ who is part of the Godhead. While not a direct statement on the subject there are certain inferences that can be drawn about Jesus’ intentions for divinely sanctioned marriages through human bodies.

First, because male and female bodies are spiritually compatible. Only by seeking a heterosexual union can the spiritual compatibility be complete. Robert A. J. Gagnon has said:

In Gen 2:18-24 “Adam,” the human creation from the “ground” (ʾădâmâh), is literally dismembered. His side is split open in order to provide for him the companionship of a complementary being. Marriage between a man and a woman reunites these representatives of the two genders into “one flesh,” and is not simply a union of two individuals. The missing part of man is found in woman and vice versa. Sexual intercourse or marriage between members of the same sex does not restore the disunion because it does not reconnect complementary beings.¹

In Genesis we read that Eve complimented Adam. Men and women were literally and spiritually made for one another without exception. In the words of Norman Geisler:

She was not just like him; she is from him. She is his sexual “other” and as such is the only one who can complete him… this “otherness” cannot be completed by adding another male for him or another female for her, which is why feelings and desires, as important as they are in relationships, are not the basis for rightness or wrongness of sexual actions but creation, the way God made us, is.²

In this sense it should be understood that men and women compliment each other in their otherness. In other words, sameness does not compliment, it merely reflects. Men who seek men or women who seek women are looking for themselves in a partner. Though heterosexual unions focus on the otherness of their partners that compliments them as God intended.

Romans 1:18-32 shows that seeking the sameness in partners is a form of self-idolatry or self-worship. Romans 1:24-26 serves as a subsection and v. 25 is the hinge that connects the other verses:

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.

Paul is referring to the idolatry of man-made gods in v. 24 and homosexuality in v. 26. He ties these two sins together in v. 25 by explaining that in both cases people “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” So, when people seek someone of the same sex for a partner they worship themselves as “the creature” rather than God. Paul explains that both the invisible attributes of God and God’s intended design for sexual intercourse through the design of human bodies are obvious, but all the same ignored by those in active homosexual relationships.

Second, because male and female bodies are anatomically compatible. It is clear from the design of sexual reproductive organs that God had a particular design in mind for sex within marriage. To ignore such physiological markers is to ignore God’s plan for marriage.

Third, because male and female bodies are biologically compatible. Heterosexual marriages are the only marriages designed to bring life into the world when the sperm of a male joins with an egg of a female to begin the fertilization process. Conversely, homosexuality can only result in death because it is impossible to bring forth life through such unions. Artificial insemination is certainly available to same-sex couples, but such a procedure is only possible by borrowing from the other sex.

Fourth, because homosexuality comes with tremendous health risks. Studies have shown that homosexuals have a decrease in life expectancy of 12-20 years on the low end and up to 25-30 years on the high end.³ The reason being there are a bevy of morbidities associated with a homosexual lifestyle such as the following:

• Inevitable fatal immune disease, including associated cancers
• Frequently fatal rectal cancer
• Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases
• A much higher than usual incidence of suicide
• An at least 50% likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment
• 2% of the population accounts for 60% of all adult/adolescent AIDS cases and 84% of those due to sexual activity
• Contracted sexually transmitted diseases are at a rate two to three times higher than heterosexuals⁴

Someone might make the rebuttal that due to significant strides in medical science we can effectively treat many sexually transmitted maladies. It may be true that cutting-edge science may one day be able to overcome the risks of homosexual intercourse. However, the need to go to such lengths to help same-sex couples live healthy lives ought to make it clear that such activity was never a part of God’s design.

With all that has been said it should be obvious that the complimentary design and nature of male and female bodies is a powerful testament of Jesus Christ who created all things (Col. 1:16). The obvious statement is that the sole design for marriage is between a man and a woman.

Conclusion

The reality is that Jesus really has spoken about homosexuality. Just because He did not spell it out in painstaking detail does not mean that He was supportive or even ambivalent on the matter. Anyone with eyes to see will come to the conclusion that not only did Jesus refuse to give permission for same-sex unions but spoke out against them in a number of ways.

It is also important to remember that Jesus was not in the habit of making things easier on people. He often narrowed admonitions on sin such as committing adultery when lust is in the heart (Mgt. 5:28). To appeal to Robert A. J. Gaggon once again, “On matters relating to sexual ethics Jesus often adopted stricter, not more lenient, demands than most other Jews of His time. In other words, His expectations regarding sexual purity, in some respects at least, exceeded the expectations both of the Torah and of traditions prevailing in Jesus’ day.”⁵

Just because Jesus preached love does not mean that He took a soft position on everything that people deem paramount to their ethical worldview. Jesus did preach love, but He preached a holy love, and had clear expectations for how people ought to live out love. Whether people are willing to listen to Him when He speaks will be up to them, but let it be known that He has indeed spoken.

1. Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and homosexual practice: Texts and hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001, 194. ↩︎
2. Geisler, Norman L., and Doug Van Gordon. Somewhere under the rainbow: A Christian look at same-sex “marriage.” Matthews, NC: Bastion Books, 2017, 130. ↩︎
3. Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3.847. PMID: 9923159. ↩︎
4. Gagnon, 472-474.
   ↩︎
5. Ibid., 197. ↩︎