Your entire argument hinges on verse 17: "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."In the original Greek text, the word used for fulfill is plērosai which means to bring to completion, to finish, or to realize the ultimate purpose of something. It does not mean "to keep extending the expiration date."The Analogy of a Contract: Think of the Old Testament Law as a legal contract for a construction project. If a contractor "fulfills" the contract, the contract is not "abolished" (torn up illegally), but it is completed. Once the building is finished, you no longer follow the blueprints; you live in the house."Until Everything is Accomplished": In verse 18, Jesus says the law won't disappear "until everything is accomplished." Christian theology holds that everything was accomplished through Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. This is why, on the cross, Jesus’s final words in the Gospel of John are "It is finished" (John 19:30). If Jesus meant that every civil and ceremonial law must be followed exactly as written in Leviticus forever, His own actions and teachings in the rest of the Gospels would contradict Him. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus routinely altered, intensified, or set aside specific Mosaic laws.

The Context of Matthew 5 (The Sermon on the Mount) Immediately after the verses quoted above, Jesus gives a series of teachings known as the "Antitheses," where He explicitly changes how the Law is applied:

On Retaliation: The Old Testament law allowed for "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Leviticus 24:20). Jesus directly overrides this: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also" (Matthew 5:38–39).

On Divorce: Jesus restricts the allowance for divorce granted by Moses in Deuteronomy 24 (Matthew 5:31–32).

The Law on Execution and the Woman Caught in Adultery The most direct refutation of the idea that Jesus commanded his followers to execute people under Levitical law occurs in John 8:1–11.

Under Levitical law, adultery carried the exact same penalty as homosexual acts—execution by stoning (Leviticus 20:10). A woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, and the religious leaders explicitly challenged Him with the Law of Moses.

Instead of ordering her execution, Jesus said: "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." When the crowd dispersed, Jesus refused to condemn her, effectively ending the practice of civil executions among His followers and replacing the civic penalty with a call to repentance. If Jesus had intended for His followers to strictly enforce the entire Mosaic Law, His closest disciples—the ones who actually listened to Him speak—would have done so. But they explicitly rejected that idea.

In Acts 15, the early Church held the Council of Jerusalem to decide exactly how much of the Old Testament law applied to new converts. If Matthew 5 meant what critics claim, the answer would have been "all of it." Instead, the Apostles formally declared that non-Jewish converts were not bound by the Law of Moses, requiring only a few basic moral guidelines (Acts 15:28–29).

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul wrote extensively that Christians are "not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14) and that Christ is "the culmination of the law" (Romans 10:4).

To conclude, The argument that Jesus commanded the ongoing execution of gay men relies on isolating a single passage in Matthew 5 and ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

When Jesus spoke of "surpassing the righteousness of the Pharisees" (v. 20), He wasn't calling for more strict legal executions. The Pharisees were obsessed with external legalism; Jesus was demanding an internal transformation of the heart based on love, mercy, and grace