A good argument can be made that the death sentences in the Books of Moses are a “game” of sorts. Many, many things generated death sentences, including gathering sticks on the Sabbath! See Numbers 15:32-35. In other words, there was a recognition even in Mosaic times among the Hebrews that it was so difficult to NOT earn a death sentence, very, very, very few were ever executed. So, in John 8, when the adulteress is brought to Jesus so that He can stone her, His answer – “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” – is not a new argument, but rather AN INVOCATION OF THE LOGIC ALREADY BUILT INTO THE LAW OF MOSES. In other words, the logic of the Law of Moses, intended by God to be implicit in the Law of Moses, was, “So much earns a death sentence or other incredibly severe sentence, that if you’re dumb enough to demand the death penalty, then, buster, prepare to die, if you’ve done anything worse than pick your nose!”
Bottom line: The teaching of the Law of Moses, that homosexual intercourse is evil, remains valid, but the SENTENCE for the evil act, the death sentence, was rarely imposed even in Mosaic times.
Jesus DOES implicitly condemn homosexual acts, but very, very gently. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus argues that it is fair for God to demand that divorced people “keep their pants on” and not have sex with anyone by functionally arguing, “Look, guys, we all agree here that it’s fair for God to demand no sexual activity among soldiers or navy personnel or prisoners (‘some who have been diliberately made so’ – ‘made eunuchs’ by their circumstances); and it’s fair for God to demand no sexual activity among celibate monks like the Essenes (‘some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign’)…”
One other category of celibate whose voluntary celibacy Christ uses as a case which establishes that it is fair for God to demand that divorced “keep their pants on” are “some men…incapable of sexual activity from birth.”
What is he referring to?
Some Bible commentatoras argue that this refers to birth defects in the sex organs.
However, that interpretation is CLEARLY wrong. If someone with a birth defect in his genital region CAN’T have sex, then he’s not celibate because God EXPECTS HIM to be celibate. Instead he is celibate because he CAN’T have sex – in other words, the argument doesn’t work. That interpretation has Christ using a poor example, which shoots Christ’s Own argument in the foot, of why divorced folks should keep their pants on.
What interpretation makes Christ’s argument work?
THIS interpretation: If those who are “some men…incapable of sexual activity from birth” refers to those pre-wired at birth to be inclined to homosexual behavior, as to whom Christ and His listeners take it for granted that homosexual acts are immoral.
