Obviously, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

Obviously.

That has become such an overused talking point in progressive “Christianity” that it’s practically a meme itself. It’s basically their common stock argument against biblical Christianity.

But it’s dumb.

This response was almost too perfect because it perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the left’s position. The statement above was in response to the following meme:

They will always say, “Jesus ate with sinners.” Yet, they conveniently ignore that Jesus’s purpose for mingling with sinners was to call them to repentance and faith, to save them, and to change them.

It was never to affirm them.

So they argue that Jesus never explicitly used the word “homosexuality,” therefore, homosexuality was of no concern to him. Therefore, according to the left, Christians who condemn homosexuality are going above and beyond what the Scriptures teach.

Remember when Beth Moore claimed her words in her book condemning homosexual behavior “exceeded Scripture”?

The insinuation almost always follows that opposition to homosexuality comes from Paul, Leviticus, modern conservative culture, or elsewhere—but never Jesus Himself.

But the whole argument rests on the assumption that Jesus’s moral teaching is limited to what has been recorded in “red letters” in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that premise—which denies the entire doctrine of Scripture—exists nowhere in Scripture itself, and in fact, Jesus’s own words destroy that entire premise.

Of course, it goes without saying that not every word Jesus ever spoke was recorded in Scripture. John explicitly says this in John 21:25. But that’s beside the point, because we get our doctrine and moral teaching from Scripture, not tradition.

But the reality is that the gospels are selective accounts with specific doctrinal purposes. Therefore, we cannot conclude that simply because Jesus isn’t recorded as specifically addressing a particular moral issue, He wasn’t concerned with it.

For example, Jesus never explicitly addressed “racism.” Jesus never explicitly addressed bestiality, child molestation, or the Atlantic slave trade.

He never addressed internet pornography, nor did He ever mention human trafficking.

And he never once spoke of fentanyl abuse.

Yet, not a single person who accepts the argument that “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality” as proof that He didn’t care about it would accept the same argument in these other moral issues.

Racism is a particularly pertinent example, because leftist “Christians” constantly invoke Jesus to argue against “white supremacy” or “white Christian nationalism” or “systemic racism” in America.

Yet, the obvious question would be: Where does Jesus condemn racism?

He doesn’t. At least, not in explicit terminology.

But Christians can easily derive the condemnation of racial hatred and partiality from the whole of Scripture and biblical teaching about God’s created order, justice, partiality, and equal moral accountability of all people before a Holy and righteous God.

And so progressive “Christians” do exactly that when it comes to “racism.” They can correctly recognize a moral principle so long as it doesn’t oppose whatever ethical concern they selectively embrace.

But they won’t do that with homosexuality, because the vast majority of them are homosexuals—and acknowledging Jesus’s clear position on the issue, derived from the whole of Scripture, would contradict their sinful desires.

The question isn’t, “Did Jesus use the word homosexuality?”

The question is, “What is Jesus’s moral framework?”

Well, first off, Jesus explicitly affirmed traditional marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. As a matter of fact, he explicitly dismantled at least three leftist talking points in this one passage alone.

⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ 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’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Not only did he affirm the totality of Scripture (“Have you not read…?”), He also affirmed a gender binary (“made them male and female…”) and He affirmed traditional one man and one woman marriage (“a man shall…cling fast to his wife…”).

Jesus unquestionably defines the sexual union as within the bounds of a monogamous, man-and-woman marriage.

Homosexual intercourse would violate this structure.

Jesus did not need to compile an encyclopedia of every possible sexual violation in order to make what He affirmed in this passage clear. Jesus addressed this sexual union in the context of Jewish law, which, again, He clearly reaffirmed in His statement “Have you not read…?”

Yet, Jesus absolutely does condemn sexual immorality—porneia—in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21–23.

¹⁹ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

“But does porneia include homosexuality?” asks the progressive.

This is where historical biblical context matters. Again, Jesus was a first-century Jew addressing people whose moral framework came from Old Testament Jewish law. The people He was speaking to would have clearly understood Jesus’s words in the context of Leviticus and other Old Testament passages condemning homosexuality and other sexually deviant behaviors.

Homosexual behavior was already explicitly condemned in Old Testament law, and Jesus never creates an exemption for it when discussing sexual immorality. It would have been the default understanding.

The “exemptions” for homosexuality are a modern creation of progressive “Christianity.”

Jesus repeatedly affirmed the authority of the Old Testament in passages like Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew 22:31-32, John 10:35, etc. And Jesus repeatedly answers theological disputes with “Have you not read…?”

So dismissing Leviticus with “Jesus never mentioned” is a logical fallacy that simply does not work.

Yet, just like Beth Moore did with, the leftist “Christian” attempts to create two levels of authority in Scripture—the red letters vs. the black letters. Jesus vs. Paul. Or Jesus vs. the Apostles. But Christianity, and the Scriptures themselves, and even the “red letter” words of Jesus Himself, never taught or viewed Scripture in that way.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16.

And most importantly, Jesus Himself commissioned Paul and the Apostles and stated that the Holy Spirit would guide them to speak the truth on His behalf (John 14:26, John 16:13, etc.)

Jesus tells the Apostles to go out and teach all that He has commanded (Matthew 28:19–20).

And Jesus specifically commissioned Paul, stating:

“Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”

And later, in Acts 23:11:

“As you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”

Therefore, it is not difficult to conclude that Paul’s words in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 are not simply some unauthorized theological opinion in competition or contradiction to Jesus’s words.

Paul’s words are Scripture, commissioned and affirmed by Jesus and inspired by the Holy Spirit, so pitting them against Jesus’s words is futile.

And Paul’s words are especially inconvenient for progressive “Christians.”

Romans 1 describes homosexuality as shameful and contrary to nature, while 1 Corinthians 6 places homosexuality among sins from which people must repent. Then comes the gospel: such were some of you.

The gospel is that Christ receives sinners, cleanses sinners, justifies sinners, and sanctifies sinners. But it does not affirm sin or declare sins righteous. This is the prefect follow-up to “Jesus ate with sinners.”

Yes, He did.

But sinners who come to Christ do not remain identified by their unrepentant sin. That same Jesus who ate with the “such were some of you” is the same Jesus who called them to repent.

Progressives love the first half of the gospel—Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners.

But they hate the second part—repentance.

Why?

Luke 5:31–32 tells us why,

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

That word “repentance” is what gets X’ed out in their bibles. It isn’t even all of the black letters. It’s just the ones that contradict the sins they love.

Jesus’s treatment of sinners was most certainly gracious. But it was also uncompromising. Jesus at with Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus’s life changes. Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. He told her to go and sin no more. He does not ever affirm sin.

The issue is much deeper than homosexuality. The issue is authority. It’s why this leftist talking point is so persistent, yet so weak. It is about who gets to define sin. Historic biblical Christianity says Scripture defines sin, but progressive “Christianity” works backward from modern moral assumptions and allows the autonomous self to define sin.

It isn’t simply placing Jesus’s words higher than the Apostles’. It’s a complete and total rejection of Christ and His authority.

And that’s nothing less than a path to destruction.