In a recent webinar podcast geared toward making the argument that same sex attraction is not sinful, Preston Sprinkle and Gregory Coles suggest that Jesus Himself may have experienced sexual attraction. Coles states, “It does seem like it sort of cheapens the passage to be like, Jesus totally knows what you’re going through, but not that part… Jesus didn’t deal with that part.”

Sprinkle agrees, as they speculated that, since God created humans as sexual beings, “the thing we call opposite-sex attraction is kind of just part of being human.” Their claim is simply that if Jesus was fully human, and sexuality is part of humanity, then Jesus probably experienced sexual attraction.

But here’s the thing—both men also spent the entire podcast arguing that same-sex attraction isn’t sinful. It’s just a natural consequence of the fall. So if sexual attraction isn’t sin, and Jesus experienced sexual attraction, then what exactly stops them from making the logical jump that Jesus could have been same-sex attracted?

This is the absurd end of their logic. Did they make this claim? No. But, please, pay attention. Because it’s the next logical step. I’m pointing out that there is no logical reason to reject such a claim IF you hold their views, and this is why we cannot cede one inch to them.

Here is the logic:

If same-sex attraction isn’t sinful, then Jesus could have had it and still remained sinless.

That’s the garbage you get when you redefine sin as a mere behavioral glitch instead of the inward corruption of the heart.

If same sex attraction is “just a result of the fall,” but not sin itself, then what’s stopping anyone from dragging Christ into the same muck and calling it empathy? According to them, Jesus can relate to your temptations, so long as you don’t call those temptations sinful. It’s blasphemy.

But Scripture isn’t vague. Jesus was tempted in every way except sin (Hebrews 4:15). He bore the consequences of the fall—hunger, pain, grief—but not its corruption. He didn’t inherit our disordered affections. He didn’t entertain inward rebellion. And He certainly didn’t carry around sexual inclinations that violate God’s design.

James 1 is clear that temptation arises from desire, and desire gives birth to sin. The very thing these men excuse is what Christ came to destroy—not embrace. Jesus isn’t your gay friend who gets it. He’s the spotless Lamb, undefiled, holy, and righteous. And anyone dragging His name through their rainbow-colored theology ought to tremble.