Is it fair to say because Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, He was for it?

I'm sure you've heard this argument before. It's a common argument in LGBT-affirming circles. It goes something like this: Since Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality, it is assumed that he was accepting of it. This position is often referred to as the “silent argument.”

In this article, I aim to provide you with a biblically grounded and theologically sound refutation of the “silent argument.”

By examining Jesus's teachings on marriage, sexuality, and sin, we can clearly understand his beliefs and teachings. This will allow us to respond to the misinterpretations promoting Jesus as a gay-affirming Jewish rabbi.

Responding to the silent argument

It is poor reasoning to think because Jesus didn’t mention a particular sin or immoral evil, he somehow was for it. This is problematic for three primary reasons.

First, are we to assume that Jesus' failure to mention bestiality, rape, and incest explicitly implies his support of these immoral acts? Of course not. Even gay revisionists recognize the flaws and limitations of using “silence” as an indicator of Jesus' support for immoral behavior.

Continued below.