The battle lines in the modern church are no longer drawn over the historical existence of God or the reality of the resurrection. Today, the most volatile conflict centers on two simple words: Biblical Sexuality.
A doctrine is sweeping through our culture—and unfortunately, through too many church doors—which claims that traditional sexual ethics are just outdated cultural prejudice. The most popular argument used to silence those who stand on Scripture is this deceptive half-truth: “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.”
This assertion—that the Creator of the universe remained strategically silent on a topic that pervades modern debate—is either a profound historical oversight or a desperate attempt to create a massive hole in God’s moral law.
This article is a Controversial Biblical and Doctrinal Exposition to uncover the truth. We are going beyond the soundbites and cultural talking points to expose the three primary errors of this progressive argument. We will demonstrate that:
- Jesus’ explicit definition of marriage in the Gospels automatically excluded all other arrangements.
- The supposed “silence” of Jesus is, in fact, the strongest affirmation of the Law he came to fulfill.
- The modern claim that the Apostles Paul and Peter were only discussing “unloving, ancient sex acts” is contradicted by historical context and the clear meaning of the original Greek.
Prepare to contend for the faith. The truth is that Jesus, the divine Word made flesh, spoke volumes on the original design for human intimacy, and it’s time for us to listen to His words, not the echoes of cultural confusion.
1. The Myth of Jesus’ Silence: Defining Marriage from the “Beginning”
The central claim that Jesus was silent on same-sex relations collapses when we examine His definitive teaching on marriage and divorce. When the Pharisees pressed Him on marriage law in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus did not offer a new standard; He pointed straight back to the Creation account:
“He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?’”
The Debunking Points:
- Positive Definition is Exclusionary: Jesus was asked about divorce, but He answered by defining the nature of marriage itself. He defined it as the permanent, male and female union that forms one flesh. By positively defining the boundary, Jesus implicitly excluded all arrangements that do not fit that structure—including polygamy, incest, and same-sex unions.
- The Authority of Genesis: Jesus chose to root His definition not in the temporary Mosaic Law, but in the eternal, foundational design laid out “from the beginning” in Genesis 1 and 2. This proves that this standard is pre-cultural and universal.
- Affirmation of the Old Testament Law: Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience living under the Torah. In that context, sexual relations between two men or two women were already unambiguously categorized as “an abomination” and “detestable” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). For Jesus to affirm the moral foundation of the Law without needing to reiterate every prohibition was not silence; it was unquestioned affirmation. The things Jesus condemned were things not clearly condemned by the Law (like hatred in the heart).
2. The Cultural Confusion: Paul’s Universal Condemnation
Progressive interpreters frequently attempt to limit the New Testament prohibitions to only “abusive” or “impersonal” acts prevalent in Roman society, claiming the Bible allows for “loving, committed” same-sex relationships. This argument disintegrates when reading the clear text of Romans 1:26-27.
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…”
The Debunking Points:
- The “Natural” vs. “Contrary to Nature” Distinction: Paul doesn’t focus on pederasty (man/boy) or prostitution; he focuses on the act itself, which he calls a violation of “natural relations” (phusikos) and an exchange for what is “contrary to nature” (para physin). The “nature” he references is the created order of male and female established in Genesis.
- The Exchange is the Sin: Paul’s primary point is the exchange of one thing for another. The women exchanged the natural relationship (with a man) for the unnatural one. The men likewise exchanged the natural relationship (with a woman) for the unnatural one. This describes a definitive shift away from God’s design, regardless of the emotional state of the participants.
- Historical Context is Against the Claim: While exploitative acts existed, documented historical records from the Greco-Roman world show that same-sex adult unions and ceremonies were known. If Paul only wanted to condemn abuse, he would have used different Greek terminology to specify that (such as describing the violence or exploitation). Instead, he condemns the act as a failure to acknowledge God as Creator.
3. The Linguistic Trick: The True Meaning of Arsenokoitai
The final progressive argument often rests on linguistic manipulation, claiming the modern English word “homosexual” was not used until 1946, suggesting the Bible was mistranslated to push a modern agenda.
The Debunking Points:
- The Greek Word Arsenokoitai: In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul uses the compound Greek word arsenokoitai (translated as “men who practice homosexuality” or “sodomites”). This word is a deliberate mashup of two Greek words:
- Arsēn (male).
- Koitē (bed, lying with).
- A Direct Reference to the Torah: This Greek compound is believed by scholars to be a direct translation of the phrasing used in the Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Old Testament—to describe the prohibition in Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with a male as with a woman…”). Paul was clearly using the recognized, technical term to refer to the very acts condemned in the Old Testament.
- The Church’s Historical View: The claim that the meaning is modern ignores nearly 2,000 years of consistent interpretation by Church Fathers (like Tertullian, Augustine, and Chrysostom) and Reformers, who universally understood these passages to condemn same-sex acts. The “new” interpretation is the one that has only appeared in recent decades.
Contending for the Faith, Not Cultural Conformity
The debate over biblical sexuality is not a debate over ancient culture or linguistic misunderstandings. It is a debate over Authority.
The progressive view asks us to believe that the Creator, who defined marriage at the dawn of creation, was somehow silent or ambiguous about this matter, or that His apostles fundamentally misunderstood Him. This requires us to reject the unified testimony of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels (Jesus’ own words), and the Apostles’ teaching.
The call for the Christian is clear: To love God is to obey His commands (John 14:15). We are called to love all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, but genuine love never validates what God calls sin.
We must affirm that the biblical standard for sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage covenant: one man and one woman, for life. This is not hatred; it is holiness. It is the truth Jesus affirmed, and it is the truth we must courageously contend for.