There are two specific propositions in this claim here:
- Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and
- if he said nothing about a subject, then it is not a moral issue. So the argument is that where Jesus silent and no matter what other part of the bible said, the silence 'trumps' other references.
It is fair to say that Jesus never directly referred to homosexual activity (or if He did it is not recorded). Equally there are other moral issues that we have no record of Jesus speaking about such as kidnapping, drunkenness, gambling and failure to care for the elderly. Should we be ignoring issues such as these too as irrelevant? I think not. Silence does not confer consent.
There was no debate in Jewish theology at that time about same sexual activity. If the truth was contrary to this then it is likely that Jesus would have made a comment (as He did about the permanence of marriage). However, Jesus certainly did speak about sex and marriage. He quotes the Old Testament when he spoke about divorce- Mat 19:4-5
He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
It is on this basis that Cannon 30 of the Church of England is expressed as it is.
Secondly, and implied in the answer above, Jesus relied upon the veracity of what we call the Old Testament and the early church came to accept the gospels and epistles as the same. Are we to ignore the content based upon the choices of the colture of the day?
Comments powered by CComment