But Michaelson want us to think about the story in a
different way by focusing on the Greek term pais
used in both Matthew and Luke. He argues that it does not mean “servant” here
but “lover” and appeals, though not with any references, to the work of
Thucydides, Plutarch and “countless other Greek sources.” He contends that
translating pais as “servant” makes
no sense since 1) one would not expect a Roman solider to beg on behalf of a
slave, 2) although Luke calls the person in question a “slave” (doulos) the centurion calls him pais, 3) it was a common practice for
Roman soldiers to have servants/lovers based on the Greek model. Michaelson
acknowledges that the person in question was probably a servant, but also much
more. He then views this story as Jesus extending an unhesitating, healing hand
to a centurion and his homosexual lover just as he did to prostitutes. You can read his whole post here.
Before I comment on Michaelson’s analysis I do want to say
that in spite of Jesus’ silence on the topic of homosexuality and whether or
not his interpretation is correct here, I do think Jesus would extend a hand to
a gay person to heal him. I think Michaelson is 100% correct that given the
opportunity Jesus would do that. But I don’t think that is what Jesus is doing
here and this is why.
First, Michaelson is not the first to suggest that the person
in question here be understood as the
Roman Centurion’s homosexual servant rather than just servant, although it is a
minority opinion. And he is correct that in some instances pais was used to describe the junior partner in a homosexual
relationship. But that is not what it means here nor the rest of the New
Testament. The Greek noun pais is
used in the New Testament 24 times and has a range of meanings that include “adolescent,”
“child” and “servant.” In the LXX (the
Greek translation of the Old Testament) it appears numerous times and it always
refers to a “servant.” There are no occurrences of the term anywhere in the
Bible that can be interpreted a referring to the junior partner in a homosexual
relationship. With that in mind, we might be better off translating pais as “servant” here, which Michaelson
favors.
Second, Michaelson acknowledges that in Luke’s version of
the story the person in question is first called a “slave” in 7:2 (doulos) while the Centurion calls him a pais. He suggests that this distinction
is important by which I assume he is suggesting that perhaps Luke got the
terminology wrong but the Centurion got it correct. But Luke is writing all of
this and would have been aware of the two terms which can in fact be used as
synonyms. (See the first chapter in my Slavery Metaphors).
A better explanation for the difference in terminology in
Luke might be that Matthew and Luke had a common source that identified the person in
question as a pais, which could be
taken as either “child” or “servant.” Matthew decided to leave the whole scene
ambiguous by not introducing it with an explanation that the centurion had a
sick slave (doulos). If you read
Matthew’s version substituting “child” for “servant” (with the exception of 8:9
where the word is doulos) the story
could just as easily be about the centurion’s son and not his servant (Hagner
alludes to this in his commentary, p. 204). Luke, on the other hand, recognized
the ambiguity in the story engendered by pais,
and decided to clear it up by calling the person in question a “slave” (doulos) because that is who Luke thought
he was. Had Luke not made that addition in 7:2 both stories could be read as the
healing of the centurion’s “child.”
Third, it is true that pais
could be used as a term of endearment for slaves. As bad as slavery was/is
there were those cases when a slave and master did become close. But that does
not automatically translate into homosexuality. For instance, we have a copy of
a letter sent by Augustus to one Stephanos of Laodicea. In the letter Augustus
says “you know how fond I am of my Zoilos.” This Zoilos was a former slave of
Augustus who apparently became very close with the emperor. But no one is
suggesting that the two were lovers in a same-sex relationship. Zoilos was apparently
very valuable to Augustus and the emperor developed affection for him.
The problem is that Michaelson has invested too much in the
meaning of pais. While it can be used
to refer to the junior partner in a homosexual relationship, this would be the
only such instance anywhere in the New Testament. As I pointed out, it is a
somewhat ambiguous term. Nonetheless, I do think servant here is probably the best
interpretation of pais, even though
it could be child.
But simply assuming that this term means that the servant
was the Centurion’s same-sex partner has no standing. There is not enough
evidence. We cannot assume that because the centurion had some affection for
the servant that they were, therefore, sexually involved. And we also cannot
assume that just because the centurion implores Jesus to heal the servant that
he feels anything for the servant. We know nothing about this slave and what
role he fulfilled. But if he was a slave that managed the centurion’s house
well and was in danger of dying, the centurion might have asked Jesus to heal
him so that he didn’t lose his financial investment as well as a good manager.
I am not saying this is the case, but this scenario is just as likely if not
more so than suggesting that the two were somehow sexually involved. But in the
end we don’t have enough evidence to spin either situation and the terminology is
too ambiguous.
Michaelson reaches for this story to provide a way for gays
and lesbians who are struggling with same-sex marriage as a religious act. I
commend him for thinking through this topic and have voiced my own desire that
the church actively engage the topic. But I don’t think the story of the
centurion’s servant does that for him. It is a story about a servant and a
master and we know nothing about how they interacted with one another in the
bedroom or out.
Thanks for posting on this. I thought about doing so but didn't find the time. I do think that it is entirely possible that a same-sex relationship existed between the two, as it would have been quite common in precisely those cases. But the article makes claims, such as that pais means "lover," which are simply wrong, and I am rather sad that the author knew of no one who could fact-check it.
ReplyDeleteJames,
DeleteI agree that it is possible, but I think that is all we can say. The scenario I suggest is also possible. There simply isn't enough information to make either conclusion. But yes, the article does make some unfortunate claims.
Well, I need to revise my thoughts on the article. It seems that the author knows more than I do about the topic. According to Dover's book Greek Homosexuality, pais was the term frequently used for the younger, passive partner in a same-sex relationship.
DeleteJames,
DeleteYes, that is true I don't dispute that fact. But the term was also used for slaves in general along with a number of other terms. My contention is that there simply isn't enough evidence here to make any determination as to the exact relationship that existed between the two people.
Three are to many assumptions about terminology and how it applies to specific situations, not to mention the "writers" of the bible were commissioned to create a book to guide future Christians. There were two Bible created around that time. Each was brought together at one point. Did one influenced the other? Who knows, but don't make assumptions about what was said and what it meant when the grains of sand became corrupted with time.
DeleteThe Bible was written over 1500 years after the death of Christ. Data was accumulated from a multitude of sources and where the information is thin and debatable, is it so hard to consider that there were gaps filled with creative writing. This is perhaps why there is so many questions about the details within the bible. Are modern investigators and church followers so ignorant and egotistical that they would believe their own lies and trumped up beliefs. Many of the "facts" within the pages of the bible can be easily questioned and even proven.
Interesting (and erroneous) conclusions; but it's difficult to expect any different from someone with no sources.
DeleteNote: The previous post was directed to the other "Anonymous" above it. Not to either of you, John and James.
DeleteI appreciate the article - it's both helpful and balanced; something hard to find nowadays on the subject. Thank you for sharing.
I don't dispute your main point, but feel that you have imported some modern ideas about homosexual relationships into the first century.
ReplyDeleteYou talk about "homosexual relationship" and ask whether the pais was a "lover", "same sex partner", "Gay person", "homosexual servant". This is anachronistic. If there was sex involved, then the pais would have been the loved, not the lover and the would probably have had little choice but to service his master. The sources suggest that he would have taken no pleasure in the act. He need not have been any more "gay" than anyone else. Nor would it be appropriate to describe the master as gay or homosexual. There was no such word in the ancient world, and, in any case, it was normal for upper class Romans to have sex with both men and women, so long as they were the active (penetrating) partner. It was a bi-sexual culture. Augustus, whom you mention, is an example of this.
Richard,
DeleteYou are correct in what you say. The terminology I used the terms knowing that they were anachronistic but also knowing that the modern understanding of the situation would require the use of the terms. I am responding to the article after all.
... and we see what happened to the Roman Empire
DeleteRome was doing great until it became officially Christian, and then it went to hell.
DeleteThe argument that "Pais" is referring to a homosexual has been argued by Theodore W. Jennings and Tat-Siong Benny Liew in an article published in JBL in 2006: http://jbl.metapress.com/content/u40p71023t551p61/?p=ab3f11668f39446eb4cffc76f402aa8c&pi=3
ReplyDeleteObviously, as you said, no one knows for sure. If pais was used 24 times in the NT, it would be interesting to see how each was used in context. Luke adding doulos might have been an attempt at tempering an embarrassing situation. I had to laugh when the statement was made, "if he was a slave that managed the centurion’s house well and was in danger of dying, the centurion might have asked Jesus to heal him so that he didn’t lose his financial investment as well as a good manager."...this may be introducing the Romney-Bain philosophy of humanity management.
ReplyDeleteActually, this exactly describes the type of "slave" that Joseph was to both Potiphar and Pharoah, albeit at a different period in history and culture. Seems much more plausible an explanation to me, though I'm admittedly no Bible expert.
DeleteMarkW
"though I'm admittedly no Bible expert"...same here. Although seems rather counter-intuitive (Romney-Bain philosophy...) to the whole Jesus, love, NT thing. But certainly fits into the OT thing. Too bad the OT Jubilee year isn't re-instituted. Then the lost value would be returned to the bankrupt after 49 years. But then a monetary value is set on a fetus. The whole OT thing bothers me, in regard to current living. Too many conflicting ideas. Don't want to use lamb's blood on my right ear lobe, right thumb, and right big toe to be cleansed, either. I don't want to crusade for anything. But this whole OT stuff doesn't work for me, unless I put it into the context of the documentary hypothesis, with as much politics involved with writing the OT, as there was between priests, Aaron and Moses, Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah, Solomon against the northern tribes, Solomon's "slave task master's" policy (reflecting pharoah's polices), etc. So OT is rather suspect in giving advice for moral living. But that's just my personal opinion.
DeleteI don't even know what you said.
DeleteMatthew uses the term doulos later in the same story to refer to a slave of the Centurion. I am not a scholar but overlooking that seems to be blind oversight on the part of a couple of the respondents here!
DeleteJohn, I don't find Michaelson's piece to be as anachronistic as yours in its discussion of same-gender sex in the ancient world. While you knew that your terms were anachronistic, many of your readers will not. Your piece will likely perpetuate the assumptions that your readers will inevitably make about ancient practices. No?
ReplyDeleteI'm not qualified to judge the validity of the translation, but I have to ask how, even if the story is true, this is supposed to shame traditional Christians into accepting homosexuality. Said Christians regard homosexual behavior as sinful, but Christ healed sinners all the time--this did not mean that he accepted their sin. This is exactly what Christians--as opposed to mere gay-bashers--argue today: that they are capable of hating the sin but loving the sinner.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm a supporter of gay marriage. I just don't like the claim (which John is not making, but which is clearly the point of the HuffPo article) that objection to homosexuality is somehow un-Christian.
I think what's important here is that, IF 'pais' here does mean a gay lover, Jesus makes absolutely no reference to "go and sin no more" or "sure I'll heal your 'pais' but quit having sex with him." Instead, he marvels at his faith and remotely heals the young man. It's not Jesus's endorsement of homosexuality that would make this translation so interesting, but his complete indifference to it.
DeleteWhich is precisely what works against this modern liberal eisegesis, reading 'pais' as 'homosexual lover' rather than just mere 'servant' as it is used elsewhere in the NT. I think the NT Gospels, written as they were by observant Jews or, if you will, people intimately familiar with Jewish custom, make it clear whether a person was in some way a 'sinner' or different enough to be notable (ie. a woman, a samaritan woman, a leper). It clearly states that a particular woman is an adulteress or a loose Samaritan divorcee or a dirty rotten Roman-collaborating tax collector. I do not think that an act so extremely abhorrent to Judaism with its written and oral law, something that the Pharisees were drumming into the people with extreme rigidity would get a free pass. Luke, described as a first rate historian and one who makes the claim to have examined everything carefully, notes that the Jewish elders that the centurion sent to parlay with Jesus described him (the centurion) as one 'who deserves to have [Jesus heal the servant] because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue' - Now surely someone who has become so intimate with the Jewish nation and its particular proclivities would know of the ban in the Torah on homosexual practice. Do Michaelson and other advocates of Christian endorsement of gay marriage seriously expect us to believe that these Jewish elders would have allowed a Gentile in a flagrantly open homosexual relation to build their synagogue? These are people who launch hopeless bloody insurrections against Rome just because the Romans are foreigners and are the descendants of women who allow their seven sons to be butchered in worse ways than in the movie Saw rather than violate the Law. If the centurion was 'intimate' with anyone or anything he was intimate with Jewish culture and tradition and would not have, homosexual or not, violated it so flagrantly.
DeleteJesus did not heal the Centurion's 'sin'but praised him for his faith that his Pais mous could be healed as he didn't heal the eunuch (modern equivalent: transsexual. A lot bending over backwards to point out another's bending over backwards. Matthew's account the earlier from Luke, uses the specific term for an entirely different person of doulos. Pai mou does not mean doulos or slave in this context
DeleteIs that the sound of political correctness seeping into exegesis?
ReplyDeleteThe word παῖς is used (as you note) fairly consistently. Such an interpretation as Michaelson suggests makes a mockery of other verses employing this works (such as [Matt 12:18] where the meaning is clearly unambiguous).
Without seeming cynical, it hardly seems Michaelson suggestion was being made in good faith.
Dear Dr. John - Come on, you guys! A lot of this discussion bothers me not on issues of morality but on the issue of eisegesis - taking some idea that we in our day are currently obsessed with and reading it into an ancient text. For Pete's sake - I could try to make the argument that the Centurion may have been Irish if we would choose to translate "pais" as "boyo"! But such readings-in deflect from the somewhat obvious point (in this case) of this story - that it is about the way the Centurion recognizes the authority of Jesus over illness, something the Jews remained in denial about. In general, does not such eisegesis say much more about the reader than it does about the text?
ReplyDeleteThis is a passage I cover in my thesis, where, it seems to me, there is very little doubt that pais 'means' slave. As far as I can see, when Matthew wants it to mean something else (e.g. child), he qualifies it in some way, so I would have expected him to do the same here if it did not refer to a slave (Luke also thinks this is so - calling him a doulos doesn't remove the potential embarrassment, but does indicate 'slave'). However, there is every chance that this slave is being used for sex, along with the other things mentioned. It may be that there is affection here, we cannot tell, but it is nevertheless an unequal and, from our point of view, abusive relationship - that is the nature of slavery. We can assume that this slave was good and experienced at his various tasks, and so, when away from home, without (probably) an easily available source of replacement slaves, why would the centurion not seek that the slave be restored (this assumes it is a historical account, of course, which is by no means guaranteed)? Either way, I do not think this passage is about authorising the relationship of the owner to his slave (although it perhaps does so, tacitly). More troubling to me, is the implied positive comparison of Jesus to a slaveholder here (Matt 8:9).
ReplyDeleteKnowing the righteousness of Christ, I can't fathom how He could heal someone's servant so he could continue to have sex with him, a kind of sex which is clearly condemned by Paul in the book of Romans. This would be like the devil having "mercy" on one of the apostles instead of persecuting them everywhere they went. When the devil begins to have mercy on any Christian, then I'll believe that Jesus would do the same for one of the devil's followers to continue to do what is so vile in His eyes that He cannot gaze upon it with pleasure. And let us recall what Jesus said to the man who lay next to the pool of Bethesda for 38 years in some sort of paralytic condition. After Jesus healed him, He said to him, "go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you." Also, to the woman caught in the very act of adultery, Jesus said, "neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." I'm sure their lives were quite different after their supernatural encounters with Jesus. But Jesus made it clear that He did not condone their sin by healing them or forgiving them. To try to make the case that Jesus condones any sexual sin, whether fornication, adultery, incest, rape, homosexuality, or even lustful thoughts is to blaspheme His holy name/character. It is to pervert His image to that of "fallen" man.
ReplyDeleteI feel sad for you
DeleteJohn Byron, thank you for sharing your opinion and position. However, I respectfully disagree. The Greek word “pais” used to describe the ill person is important. Pais can be defined as boy, girl, child, son, daughter, slave, handsome young man and beloved. In the early Roman Empire, homosexuality was common practice in the ranks of the army. The word “pais” was used to describe the centurion’s same-sex partner. A Roman soldier would not express affection or concern for a mere slave. Additionally, I have no reason to doubt Greek scholar, Sir Kenneth James Dover. Pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship.
ReplyDeleteSo every single centurion was bisexual or homosexual? That sounds suspiciously like the Da Vinci Code claim that every single 'rabbi' was married. Some people just don't swing that way my friend, I certainly don't and there is nothing in the text to suggest that the Centurion did either. Furthermore, Luke describes the Jewish elders, who would have been seeped in Pharisaic tradition and observance of the OT Law - that same law that has that troublesome little book Leviticus in it - describing the centurion as "worthy" of Jesus' aid because he "loves our nation" (not some homosexual slave but the OT Law abiding, Sabbath keeping, Messiah waiting, homosexual abhorring First Century Jewish nation) and has "built our synagogue" - again, why would observant rebellious First Century Jews allow an open pederast or homosexual practitioner to sully their synagogue by having anything to do with it?
DeleteI have no reason to doubt Sir Kenneth James Dover's or any other Greek scholar's assertion that pais CAN mean a junior partner in a same sex relationship but it is very clear that this meaning is one of several and many of the others can be taken and should be taken as non-sexual. Once again not all Romans or Greeks were bisexual or gay no more than all Americans or Germans are bisexual or gay. Some people just don't get turned on by that and making a blanket assumption just because some practiced this within the Roman military is irresponsible and unfounded eisegesis.
John Patterson, your argument makes no sense to me. You yourself say that pais can (and indeed mostly does) mean boy or son or child etc.. It is an incredibly common word. only in a very small percentage of cases does it not mean boy or son or child. Are you saying that it is unlikely that the centurion had a boy or son or child but more likely that he had a homosexual lover?
DeleteSo more centurions had homosexual lovers than had boys / sons / children? DID THEY???
As if that were not enough, it is also true that the John 4 parallel speaks of a son.
Best wishes
Dr Christopher Shell
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
ReplyDeleteRoman centurions could not take a wife under the emperor's decree. Let's face it, you're not coping with the fact that most slaves in that era served more than just menial uses. Love-making between people of the same sex is nothing new, and Jesus didn't discriminate.
ReplyDeleteBUT YOU DO.
Dear, Brave Anonymous,
DeleteI am not discriminating, I am arguing over historical plausibility. Moreover, I am not sure why you are bringing the topic of a wife in here since that has not been mentioned. You seem to assume that since Roman soldier couldn't have a wife he therefore engaged in same sex practices. That logic is faulty.
Are you Christian or Religious?
ReplyDeleteBTW this is a different Anonymous from above.
DeleteI am a Christian.
DeleteStumbling upon this article in preparation for preaching this Sunday has urged me to contribute my contextual two cents. Using the context of the pericope, Luke 7:1-10, it is quite obvious that "pais" cannot infer a homosexual relationship. Consider how the presbyters or Jewish elders speak concerning this gentile, whom would be considered an outsider; they call him worthy or more strongly, they call him deserving of Jesus' aid. Why? Because he loves the nation Israel and since paid for or built himself their synagogue. These Jews would not think so highly of this gentile centurion if he were a defiler of their Law by having homosexual relations, let alone seek out Jesus (who preaches against homosexual behavior) to aid him. Christ died for homosexual sins, like all other sins. Christ has called all by the Gospel to trust in faith from repentance to live in him as his forgiven sinners.
ReplyDeleteLike others I am preparing for Sunday's sermon - so I have stumbled across this article. Thank all of you for adding to my knowledge. My thought is this - maybe Jesus healed on the basis of God's love and not on the human system of who deserves to be healed. There is an emphasis in the passage of status - the centurion, the Jews, the slave, the person who donated to the synagogue - but Jesus healed a person, not a human system of status. Whether the slave serviced the centurion sexually or not is a moot point as the slave had no say in the matter - the power was with the centurion. I believe that human status/power is a corruption of God's love for and of all creation.
ReplyDeleteI personally view this passage the way Jesus did, He saw the person, their need and their faith not the sin if there was one. Oneday He looked beyond our faults and saw our need. Amen. Jesus did not come to condemn the world. He came to save the world.
ReplyDeleteThat certainly wasn't the case with Zacchaeus, the Samaritan woman of Sychar and the woman caught in adultery. Jesus does love and forgive with grace that is above and beyond all we can ask or imagine BUT He also DEMANDS that we leave our life of sin. He does not turn a blind eye to sin - indeed he preaches against it and warns of hell more than anything he does. Do not be so blind as to imagine that Jesus loves irresponsibly. With grace must come truth and with love must come justice. Jesus did come to save the world but only if the world accepted His terms of salvation - which does not include continuing on one's merry way as if nothing life-changing and earth-shattering has happened.
DeleteI agree with John's view on the exegesis of this passage and especially the word study. John's view is an appropriate way to interpret this passage base on historical evidence, biblical theological interpretation, the text's context within the Bible, book, and especially within the above and below context. If we interpret the scripture only base on a word study only on a lexicon or a historical definition of this word, we might not an accurate meaning to proof this salve is a same sex partner. It is only an opinion that usually a scholar will give but honestly with a quite weak creditability (even in an academic world).
ReplyDeleteAs what John suggests (hopefully I under it right), it is more plausible to believe they are just friend and really good friend (not with a sexual relationship) rather than a same sex partner. If I let you make it interpret that way, a female sex partner is more possible. But I will say my point is still weak because there is no mention of a sexual relationship suggested in this context (because taking a female as a sex partner is a more normal , because the Bible authors will simple states that is the centurion's wife then. If the passage didn't say so, we can only say it is a wild guess, right? But sorry, as a Christian, taking God's word to do a wild guess, eh, I don't think this is appropriate.
Problem with today's seminary (sorry to criticize on the seminary) is too much on academic creativity rather than an appropriate biblical interpretation that allows the text speaks on its own. There is a hidden problem with theological perspective on hermeneutics that is eisegesis rather than exegesis because on this
It is too sad to see the author of Huffington Post and many others has their own agenda to use the scripture arbitrary, but I appreciate John voice out and defends the right way to interpret the Bible.
Amendment: I am sorry that there is a few extra words "because on this" that originally I have something to write but I think I lost my thought about that. So, I think we can take out "because of this"
DeleteThings get a quite more bit complex when we go even further back and see all of the debate through the centuries.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
why does the effection that a master have for his slave have to be sexual. You can have effection for someone without it being sexual, even if they are not your son or daughter. It just takes compassion, which is seems people are just assuming he couldn't have because he was a Roman centurion.
ReplyDeleteWhat anti-gay pastors need to focus on is the *prevalence* of same-sex practices in the time of Jesus and the *fact* that despite the Romans' wide practise of same sex acts, at no point in time Jesus condemned it, so why are today's pastors obsessing over gay relationships when the world is in turmoil with issued that actually need attention? Satan truly knows how to trick you people!
ReplyDeletesin has been around since the beginning. by your logic then, we shouldn't preach on any sin, since it was prevalent also in Jesus' time.
DeleteJesus did not condemn Beastiality either, does that mean beastiality is normal?
DeleteI believe the point the previous poster was trying to make was that Jesus did preach against many sins, thereby giving the church authority to do so. But as He did not preach specifically against homosexuality, even though it was prevalent at the time, the church does not have inherent authority to condemn it.
ReplyDeleteBut he did preach *for* marital fidelity.
DeleteHowbeat can this topic be if we can stop being sentimental and face the gospel truth and doctrine of our lord Jesus and the lord almighty himself condemning this very subject matter.
ReplyDeletePartially because people rather do the things they want and please or what they feel like is right. You can see that all throughout the bible Old and New Testaments. Jesus and the apostles warned us about false teachers and preachers, but others seem to follow these false teachers because what they say is relevant to them or sounds good.
DeleteI truly believe that a lot of problems come from the fact that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have become too complacent and accepting of any and everything going on in the world. Yes we must love one another, but we don't have to agree to laws that go against the will of God because somebody wants to practice something we don't believe in. Though, we are not suppose to become anarchist either. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory. Yet some of us feel like only certain scriptures apply to us and some don't or they try to find their way and manipulate scriptures meanings for personal gain.
What gets me is that people say "if Jesus didn't do or say about something it doesn't matter or apply to us", but Jesus has given us apostles and minsters that the voice of God clearly and has given us commandments through the Word. The prophets of the Old Testaments, being the mouthpiece of God, gave warnings to the children of Israel. Some listened and others didn't. It cause them to be forced into captivity for there sin. Today, we are putting ourselves in a spiritual captivity by partially accepting the Word as truth and not the fullness thereof.
Small edit: I meant to say "trying to get their way by manipulating scriptures"
DeleteAlso meant to put "hear the voice of God clearly".
I must be blind; I do not see the word 'pais' used in either of the books/scripture mentioned. I am missing something here?
ReplyDeleteIt appears in the original greek.
DeleteThanks John, that's clear and helpful.
ReplyDeleteI am not quite so sure though that Jesus 'said nothing about homosexuality.' He condemned porneiae (plural) as well as adultery, and to any first-century Jew this would have been understood as referring to the list of prohibited sexual relations in Lev 18 and 20. The same is true on the prohibition on 'sexual immorality' in Acts 15.29.
I think some have missed the message. The fact that a Roman military officer (a gentile) did not need Jesus to be physically there to perform a miracle, but only to speak it. A faith that even most of his Apostles did not have. He didn't put God in a bubble as many of us do. Don't get stuck on a word. Even though I believe every word was put down for a reason. ... I feel this is proof of Miracles of prayer.
ReplyDeleteJohn I think you need a new spam filter…!
ReplyDeleteI very much like your post and response to the question at hand. I, personally, would not default to this passage to represent anything for Biblical reasoning about sexuality, but I do think there are a few points of suspicion here:
ReplyDelete1) That many agree the boy (whatever effectively qualifies as a boy in these times I am uneducated on) was most likely a servant as many agree, the amount of value he obtained with this centurion. As I understand it, servants were a dime a dozen. You do indicate this particular one could have been valuable to the centurion, and/ or that some type of bonding had occurred. But I'd think that bonding would be somewhat suspicious.
2) That the centurion turns down Jesus's offer to come to the home. Seems humble, but also seems odd. Some contend this was a mark that the centurion was hiding things, which I'd say is bogus since we are talking about trying to hide information from God.
Overall, I put no money in this bank, but I still think it raises some interesting questions and may require a deeper discussion. Though, your presentation is perhaps the most open-minded and considerate of the possibilities, even if your take works in opposition to my hopes for better clarity on the topic in favor of gay people.
Thanks for sharing the post.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what traditions there are in Christian history for what became of this centurion later on?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt irks me when people say that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, He most certainly did speak about the only God approved sexuality--in Matthew 19.
ReplyDeleteSome Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:3-12
Now--look back at vs 5 "for this reason" --- what reason??? Jesus links matrimony specifically to the fact that God created two genders. He uses the words 'man', 'wife', 'mother' 'father' and points out that each gender makes up half of a whole. JUST in case it wasn't completely clear that matrimonial sex is the only approved sex, He then goes on to point out that outside of marriage, the only other option is becoming a eunuch. Eunuchs were celibate, either by choice, biology, or surgery--but celibate nonetheless.
Oy I wish there were an edit function XD
Other theories attach eunuchs as homosexual. What is everyone's thoughts about this verse when the gay community attempts to use this verse as an acceptable form of sexual relationship.
DeleteMatthew19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Roman soldiers were no allowed to marry until they retired, but most took a female slave or other captured woman as their common law wife, having children by them who would be 'adopted' when they left service at about 40. In this case it is quite correct for the Centurion to call him his son, whilst the onlookers and reporters call him his slave, as legally he was born to a slave girl and so is a slave himself until adopted. This explanation fits ALL the facts and language used and is backed up by a host of evidence about the Roman army.
ReplyDeleteThat's fascinating, Peter, thanks!!
DeleteThe lord I know save you from sin not your sexual orientation so why do you pastors bother trying to keep finding a way to make us gays lesbian transgenders and bisexual feel like we are going to burn in hell is it because you just see it as in the beginning how god only created man and woman and not man and man and woman and woman. Basically what im trying to say is that nobody choose to be straight or gay only god chooses your sexual orientation besides even christ said from his own mouth that some are enuches and they come like that from heaven. This is for you straight male pastors what if you werent attracted to women what would you do would you just go out with a woman to put on and say you are straight or would you just face the simple fact that you are a gay male and god.made you that way. I just cant take it anymore hearing how you pastors always want to bully homosexuals and say that we are going to hell because yall think that we are a freak of nature or a disgrace to god btw yall pastors are not godly people because some pastors are rapist child molesters and yall even look at porn so since yall want to speak about homosexuality and say that jesus did not accept us think about the things yall do btw we homosexual people worship the lord adopt children help the community and we are gifts from god even jesus mentioned that when he made the statement about enuches
ReplyDeleteSexual orientation itself is not a sin. It can be a trial.
Deleteit is amazing how you can identify people that know what they are doing is wrong, yet they try to justify it. let's just say for the sake of our tolerance the servant was gay. I know Jesus would have known. my question to all the gays. there is another part of the bible where Jesus forgives a woman a woman that was caught in the act of adultery. she is rescued from her accusers and Jesus tells her to go and sin no more.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe the word pais has many meanings; but in the biblical sense it was used; God wanted us to focus on Jesus's act of mercy and compassion for one who would normally be a foe. A Roman soldier. The Centurion's relationship to the pais, was irrelevant to Jesus. He healed the pais all the same. The healing power of Christ is the point. The love and compassion of Jesus, and His blood shed on the cross cleanses all sinners of sin. We are all filth, and capable of thoughts and acts against every word of the Bible and God's law. There are no exceptions. Just because man in his own thoughts, interpretations, and prejudices wants to exclude one sin to be held above all others; that will not be the case when God brings down His judgement on all. He will condemn sin. Not judge some and give others a pass; because they are "heterosexual" sins. Man cannot see beyond his discriminatory thoughts and his vanity. There is an ongoing argument here about "homosexuality," in order to set it apart as a sin above and beyond others. I think God will put clarity in the hearts of his true-believers to hate "sin" and love the sinner. Because we are all sinners collectively. Unless we confess our sins and repent, and follow the word of God, and give Him the praises He deserves, your sexual behavior will only be one sin judged amongst every other on equal terms. Noting the anger and hostility denoted in each post trying to prove "homosexuality" God's most hated sin. Only God knows that. All of us are guilty of man's sinful propensity to reflect his hatred through twisting God's words to suit his own purposes.
ReplyDeleteThose who follow Christ's teachings simply follow the guidelines of the Bible in its righteousness, and in search of the truth. Not a way to exalt themselves by their sexual-orientation. It is natural for a man and woman to marry, to have children, and is is natural for a man and woman to have sex. There are also unnatural ways for a man and a woman to have sex. So ongoing arguments about sexuality is strictly an argument about sexual-orientation and corrupting and blaspheming God's word in order to justify prejudices. I will not interpret God's words as His intention to cause strife or belligerence towards my brother or sister. I will follow Jesus as He opens His truths and instructions to my heart. Jesus died for us all. Leviticus was not restricted to the acts of man lying with man, as he would lie with woman. Read it all, not just a selected passage so often used to twist God's meaning, as a way to justify prejudice or promote sinful intolerance. God is the Judge, and He makes that abundantly clear.
Christian translation services’ arrived on the scene in a very interesting time in history.
ReplyDeleteRome was the latest conqueror of this contested area of the world. The most powerful army of the time
came in, picked up the pieces that the last great empire left, placed its own leaders in power, and
imposed its way of life on a land once promised to God’s chosen people, the Christian translation.
Gospel translation
translate spanish to english
spanish to english translation
french translation
It doesn't matter. All equal in God's eyes. Nothing wrong with loving one2one Gay relationship. Lots of misguided information that make many so called Christians be as Pharisees that Christ call hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteAll Christians equal in God's eyes be they Straight or gay
True that he loves us all. Not true when your talking about sin. There will be a day of judgement. Repent from sin and follow Jesus. That's the truth. No way to get around the truth of sin. You can manipulate the word to try and cover your sin but that's false religion period.
DeleteThank you for admitting 'pais' does mean sometimes a gay man.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it most likely this Roman Centurion was gay seeing it was beyond common for them to have younger male slaves as lovers but a slave owner is not going to go through such great lengths for some piece of property he can easily replace unless he is in love with that slave.
If Christians had good evidence for the Resurrection, they wouldn't ask you to believe by faith.
ReplyDeleteThink about that.
Historians don't ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history..."by faith". So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christian apologists claim?
Christian Americans, Muslim Iranians, Hindu Indians, and atheist Japanese all believe that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre; that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; and that Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. No one is asked to use faith to believe the historicity of these events. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is good?
Answer: It's not good. In fact, its terrible; nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.
Christians ask us to believe their ancient, supernatural tall tale based on very weak evidence, and, a jump into the dark (faith). And how do they get us to make this jump into the dark? Not by presenting us with more evidence, but by appeals to our emotions and/or our fears: Either by using, "Our almighty, all-knowing god will protect you and give you eternal life (security and hope)", or, "Our righteous, just, and holy god will torture you for all eternity if you DON'T make the jump (using blind faith)."
It's an ugly, manipulative, sadistic superstition, folks. Unfortunately, it is the superstition used by the largest cult on the planet.
Let's double our efforts to debunk it.
Hi Gary, even Satan knows the scriptures. The fight is between God and Satan. A holy war. People do terrible things because of this fact. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I can tell you that we are a 4 part being. Heart, mind, soul and body. You have made some good arguments in your statement. I find that faith is much more than a religious ritual. We all have faith in something. We drive cars manufactured and assembled by people we don't know or see but we know it's fact because we see the fruit of their labor. Jesus says faith is believing in things unseen and seeing the fruit of their labors. Jesus wants that all repent and follow his teachings. Satan lays many traps to keep us from who we really are. Jesus is king of kings. Who are the kings. You are! Satan comes to steal kill and destroy who you are. Faith is believing in who you are in Christ Jesus. I hope and pray that Jesus opens your eyes to the tools of the enemy. Glory to God in wisdom and understanding!!!
DeleteThere is a difference in having faith in your car and having faith in an alleged invisible, mute, being. One is based on evidence and probabilities. The other is based on superstitions. There is no evidence that Jesus is alive, well, and Ruler of the Universe other than your devout feelings and personal experiences. If there was the same level of evidence for Jesus as God as there is for the reliability of our cars, we would all believe.
DeleteI say take the challenge and seek him out. Establish a personal relationship. Things will change. Stay away from religion. That's man made. I have seen and have been a part of the miraculous events in my life as well as others. He is alive and always ready. Once you truly seek out the father, he will open your eyes to the truth. The world will never give you what your missing. Test drive Jesus and his truth for a bit and see where it leads you. If no evidence that he exists still. Then so be it. But truly seek him out, don't just read someone's opinion online and make a life decision. Feel free to ask me anything.
DeleteI was a Christian for over 40 years. Then I found out that the Bible is riddled with scribe errors and alterations, scientific and medical errors, and historical inaccuracies.
DeleteI also came to see that the Resurrection is a superstition. There is no more evidence to believe this alleged event happened than to believe that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. The "evidence" that Christians use for this alleged event are nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.
It's an ancient tall tale, and nothing more, friends.
Many Christians will then say, "But I have personal evidence that Jesus is real. I FEEL his presence; I have EXPERIENCED his presence in remarkable personal experiences (miracles)."
Ask any child who believes that he has an invisible,imaginary friend; a friend who is big and strong; a friend who will protect him in times of trouble, and he will describe the same FEELINGS that adult Christians describe about THEIR invisible friend. Feelings are not evidence.
As far as miraculous experiences such as being healed from a bad case of pneumonia or surviving a car crash, one must ask, "What are the chances that these same 'miracles' happen to non-Christians? The truth is that xceptional events happen all the time to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and even atheists. When Jesus answers the prayer of an amputee, then you can claim a real miracle.
Actually the centurion might have been in a homosexual relationship with his pais as I am sure jesus or some part of the bible teaches to hate the sin and not the sinner and in this case jesus would have healed him as he didn't hate him
ReplyDeleteIn my understanding: the centurion has faith in who Jesus is. If the centurion believes the teachings of Jesus, as Jesus points out, then he knows he can heal his servant. The centurion is doing the will of the father. He goes to Jesus, who heals through the the authority given to him through the father. The term pais is a stumbling block to turn people from the truth of the word of God. There is no doubt Jesus believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus told the truth to all and through that truth, would have them repent and follow him. With that said: if the centurion had a male sex servant and wanted him healed, then Jesus healed him as he did countless other sinners in their sin. He does not condone the sin but that all repent. Today is nothing different? Countless of people believe in Jesus but still sin. In our sins, we ask to be healed because we believe and he answers our prayers in his time. So he would for the centurion and his servant. Glory to God for wisdom and understanding!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this informative piece of work. It is helpful while I can clearly see there are those that must embrace their concepts of what was back then. I can clearly see your premise and interpretation of a POSSIBILITY. I would further underscore the fact that this was a Roman Centurion in that there is NO dispute whether he was homosexual or not the fact remained that he was a gentile and not worthy of the masters visit as he himself acknowledged in his communication with Jesus. The point here isn't if he was gay. the point is that NONE are righteous we all fall into the category of this centurion none of us are worthy... yet his faith still worked and that person he was so concerned with was healed. Jesus underscored the point that this kind of faith was not present in Gods very own chosen people.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I love about the word of God--it makes no mistakes. I find this incident (just my opinion) to be similar to the women who was caught in the act of adultery. Jesus listened to her accusers, but stooped down to write something in the sand which none of us know. Whatever he wrote, which we can only all speculate about it was powerful/convicting enough to for them to rethink their actions! The one thing we know for sure, is that “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
ReplyDelete29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”
guys please, even if this is gay story it is probably story of sexual abuse and violence between aggressive high-sex drive heterosexual man and masochist homosexual slave, there is no love involved here they were no partners and it has nothing to do with equality
ReplyDeleteWhat this discussion is missing is any working knowledge of the very high prevalence and acceptance of man-boy sexual relationships not only in the locale of the mythical Jesus story, but also the rest of the world at that time. There are many sources attesting to this (see works by Eva Cantarella for further details if you are interested). Jerusalem is only a few miles from where the Warren Cup was found, recently authenticated to be about 2000 years old. The Warren Cup is a roman silver artifact depicting sex between men and boys.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has used the term "gay" in the context of this discussion is making an argument out of place. The Ancient Romans, like the Ancient Greeks, looked down upon adult-adult homosexuality. It is unclear how often freeborn adult Roman men has sexual relationships with servant class adult men. The historical record has an order of magnitude more regarding what happens between adult men and boys. This is because throughout the history of the human race (and as well among the non-human primates), wherever there is written record, the majority of adult males have the capacity for sexual attraction to boys, whether it is Ancient Crete, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, Korea, pre-Christian Europe, Africa, South America, native North American / Intuit, and Oceania. Everywhere. Then among the nonhuman primates, the closer they are related to humans, the more they resemble the human pattern of sexual pairbonding: adult males and juvenile males for love and bonding, adult males and adult females for procreation, and adult female - adult female for love and bonding... Bonobos, chimanzees, monkeys, etc.
So the same word in the original text can mean lover, or it may not.
ReplyDeleteAnd some say that the Bible can only be self-evident!
WOW, WE go a long way to cheapen the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not say anything about qualifying human relationships - He just wants them to be loving. What was going on between this couple of males made it into the Bible along with very few other miracles. For a reason - following the Sermon on the Mount where Christ proclaims his God-head and spells out human salvation as love alone - we need to see this next example as the extent to which He meant to include human bonding - even a Roman soldier and his beloved boy. If you can't think that and marvel at Jesus's message, then you are nit picking what Christ has just stated. He meant us to appreciate the universality he just preached.
ReplyDeleteThese were times of a people that had several wives, concubines, slaves/servants, Jews, Gentiles and Romans alike. Roman soldiers all had servants and had wives around the age of 30. It is no less believable that this boy/servant/lover was so important to the soldier he went to ask Jesus on blind faith alone to save this young man. Jesus didn't say no! He healed because of this mans faith without any question even though it was the "norm" to have that special slave/servant that served his master intimately. If we believe that the Bible is the true word of God and correct in all it's teaching then Luke just cleared the whole picture up by acknowledging this boy as a servant/slave/lover. Jesus was preaching to "gentiles" or NON-Jewish people that he was the Son of God and all who believed in him would have everlasting life. Jesus taught love. In everything he taught there was love. Even to a prostitute he loved. Even to a murderer of Jews he made a disciple of him. No sin was too great. The message is love.
ReplyDeleteThe powerful pathos of this gospel scene, along with the centurion's public show of desperation and the shocking counter-cultural resonances that followed, suggest much more than commercial interest in the servant/slave.
ReplyDeleteIs it even remotely possible that the centurion was driven to these unRoman lengths by nothing more than fear of 'financial loss' and of losing a 'good manager' should his his man Friday have died? Professor Bryon thinks it more than a remote possibility, but I think his explanation least plausible, given the highly unusual circumstances.
Whether it was homosexual attraction that drove this extraordinary scene will forever remain moot; but unquestionably, something much more sublime and impelling than mere commercial interest did. And this, realistically, could only have been love...but of a more than ordinary kind. Perhaps 'the love that dare notspeak its name' after all.
To the commentor who says the Bible was written 1500 years after Jesus death: This is incorrect. I think you might be thinking about the English translation, as the Bible (and parts thereof) has been around a lot longer than that.
ReplyDeleteThere is one pint that is made that I think is, well preposterous in that it is hardly Christ-like. The idea that Jesus is willing to heal the centurion's child/lover/servant what have you because the centurion does not want to loose a financial investment is, to me preposterous boarding on the ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteI mean this is Jesus we are talking about right? The same guy who cast out the money lenders from the temple because of their financial inclinations?
Now Jesus being well, Jesus we must presume that he would be aware of the centurion's motives. Even though he told us to love tax collectors, I do think he might say something to the centurion in regards to,"motive." In addition, I really do not think that Matthew nor Luke would retell this story if it was a mere matter of a soldier saving the purchase price of his servant, do you. I mean that is right up there with some new evangelical explaining away his 5,00 sq. ft. house or his RR.
Sorry folks, I obviously meant "point" not "pint."
DeleteFurthermore, I really do not think that the article dispelled the fact that the centurion really did want to save the life of a loved one; one that he very well could have been in a sexual relationship with as was a common custom. What the article did do was give the traditionalists interpretation of such biblical phrasings. New light is being shed on many an old traditionalist view, like in the stubborn viewpoint that structures akin to the great pyramid were built by slaves being whipped into service, a claim that is physiologically doubtful,given the weight of the stones and the time frame of construction within twenty years.
I am not saying that aliens or their like built said structures; I am just saying that we must be OPEN (as Jesus was) to new ideas.
[sorry, my iPad is in it's "crash mode."]
DeleteAs I read the centurion's request, it seems to me that it is plausible that the soldier, out of fear of "reproach" asked Jesus not to come to his house but to sort of pass the healing on; I mean it seems to me that the text here gets a bit awkward as if the soldier, fearful that his love would be found out, quickly devises another plan of action (a soldier forte!). Jesus knowing of the guy's discomfort thus does not hesitate to send the soldier and the healing on his/it's way! Thus, Matthew and Luke not only show another miracle but also show the compassion of the Christ in action... A newer way of, a path to acceptance. Really, if it was the guy's child where did said child come from as soldiers were not allow to marry let alone drag a child in tow!, Again, if it was just a slave, a mere investment, as I said Christ would have seen right threw that ploy
I find it very interesting that many commenters believe that it is logical to ascribe to Jesus acceptance of something because He didn't comment explicitly about it. Concluding that the servant was anything more than a servant is also quite dangerous logically since multiple fallacious conclusions can be wrought from the faulty premise.
ReplyDeleteIt is likely that the roads Jesus walked were "decorated" with enemies of the Roman Empire, but we have narey a word from Jesus condemning the act of crucifixion. Following the logic of those who wish to justify homosexuality in this passage should we conclude therefore that crucifixion is also a noble and courageous act and should be freely practiced by those who choose to do so??
May it never be!
Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me." Like 9:23
Before an Almighty God I tremble.
Thanks for posting. I am eternally grateful not to be polluted with protestanism.
ReplyDeletewhatever that word pais means ,i still believe jesus would have healed,jesus healed everyone of all kinds of problems sexual emotional etc jesus is LOVE.
ReplyDeleteAll of this analysis and nobody talking about why Jesus didn't say slavery was wrong? Holy Bleep!
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps if Jesus did not want people to think that he healed a homosexual he might have made the explicit point that the slave and the roman were just good friends. lol
ReplyDeleteSome Roman slaves were freeborn, but became debt slaves. These slaves due to financial hardship were treated as any other freeborn citizen, which for purposes here were legally off limits for sexual exploitation. With that said, it may very well be the value of this slave was in that he was a relative or son of a close friend who became his slave due to his family’s financial hardships.
ReplyDeleteNo need to look back nearly 2000 years to get confused over titles. Captain is appropriate here, in my judgment. What do you think when I say, he is my Captain. I say appropriate because my example is in keeping with a military person/title. So, those in the military know where this is headed, but let me explain. Captain in the Army, Marines or AF then you are sayin this is an 0-3 paygrade (junior/non-field grade) person. In the Navy (Coast Guard) you are speaking of an 0-6 paygrade ( senior field grade) person. In both examples you are correct to say they are Officers (generic title). My point is if you are on the phone and someone said it’s Captain Smith, as a military person you best get clarification before you start the conversation on just what type of Captain you are addressing. What is clear, what we know about the status when looking at the two gospels, applied here is there was a sick boy who was a centurion’s slave, which the centurion valued, and had such great trust in Jesus that Jesus Christ paused to let us all know of this man’s abundance of faith. Nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteRegardless how the Greek word is translated, the theme of repentance is lost in this article. Repentance is necessary for salvation (Matt 3:8, Mark 1:5, Acts 2:38) and Jesus teaches that repentance could not come by way of miracles (Matt 11:23) and in Luke 10:15 Jesus says “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell” and as in Matthew Jesus continues “for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” To change ones mind about sin takes both faith and repentance, a non-Jew, Roman Soldier displays such faith in Jesus is the theme of Luke chapter 7, but in the larger context a miracle notwithstanding, faith without repentance as Jesus says about Capernaum “shall be thrust down to hell”. The Gospels are silent on repentance in Luke Chapter 7, yet we know sexual perversion is hated by God and miracles alone don’t save or convert people; thus, what exactly the word means in English today is pointless to argue for some affirmative statement about miracles and acceptance.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate all the thoughts presented here... I find the discussion fascinating.
ReplyDeleteQuestion...
Did Jesus heal the centurion or the boy?
That it was the boy who was the recipient of the Lords miraculous power of healing is made clear beyond question by the record. Is it not? Yet many have spent time squabbling about the worthiness of the centurion as if he were the one miraculously healed. We should not forget that the boy was the recipient of the miraculous saving power of Jesus Christ. As far as the record indicates, he is innocent.
That said, the tendency of many to focus on the centurion does seem somewhat justified. After all, the narrative centers on the faith of the centurion. According to the record, his great faith seems to have surprised the Lord and thus enabled, to some degree, the miracle to occur.
More questions...
Do miracles require sinless recipients?
Does sin (of any kind under the sun) preclude one from exercising faith in Jesus?
Why did Jesus perform miracles (not just this one, but any of them for that matter)?
It is this authors opinion that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has never offered a miracle under any condition other than that of Faith on His name. All things begin with faith. That the centurion was a sinner can be certainly ascertained as all men have sinned and are under condemnation except it be through faith on His name unto repentance. Does the precise nature of his sins really make much difference? In all His mortal life, our Lord never met a sinless human being. Think on that. Did the precise nature of his sins really disqualify him of the Lords attention?
I would further suggest that the Lords motivation for performing many of his mighty miracles was that of love. His love being the motivator, nevertheless, not necessarily the purpose. Finding His purpose in performing miracles is sometimes as confusing and elusive as trying to find Gods purpose in the many trials we face throughout our lives.
We can with all certainty suppose, however, that part of His purpose was the temporal well being of the boy and his physical body. But to assume that the Lord's only concern was that of the temporal welfare of the boy and his centurion master would be a gross denial of His eternal mission and position as the Savior of the world.
It is thus, this authors opinion that the grand purpose in the many miracles wrought by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has been and always will be that of bringing souls unto repentance. For our faith in Him, we (the sinners) are sometimes granted miracles... but with the purpose of bringing us unto repentance. And from repentance unto that great miracle, (perhaps the greatest of all) the miracle of forgiveness.
From this perspective... it would seem pharisaic to this author to make attempts at determining whether the centurion was gay - bisexual - a slave monger - wife beater - or any other type of sinner.
Sin does not bar us from the arms of mercy. I say again... sin does not bar us from the arms of mercy.
There is no dearth of evidence demonstrating the Lords matchless love for all humanity and his desire to bless them temporally. However, His designs for men are elevated much higher than that of the temporal. His purposes are of a more lasting and eternal import. Of this there is also no dearth of evidence in scripture. The physical (temporal) healing which the Lord offers thus becomes a sign and a symbol of that greater spiritual (eternal) healing of which all humanity is invited to partake. This spiritual healing is only made possible by the everlasting atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ. It is His atonement which makes continued faith unto repentance, baptism, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost possible and effective in saving souls. This is the greatest miracle of all! And it is this miracle of amazing grace which is the overarching mission and purpose of the one we call Christ. Those who have eyes to see let them see. Those with ears to hear let them hear.
The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s entimos doulos. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke’s account rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honored.” This was an “honored slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover.
ReplyDeleteA second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.
The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion.
Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension.
'Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover. '
ReplyDeleteSo we do not know of *any* 'valued' slaves who were not male lovers? Really? That is the only option?
And assuming that Jesus' healing indicated some sort of approval or affirmation (which appears to be the direction in which you are heading), then Jesus approves not just of slavery (since he offered no criticism), but of asymmetric, exploitative, power-dynamic gay relationships?
Jesus healed blind beggars, adulterers, lepers, a woman with multiple partners...because he was compassionate, kind, loving, the Christ--that is what his grace and mercy is all about. If we had to be whole or "perfect" prior to his healing, none of us would get healed.
DeleteDon't assume because he healed people lost in their sins that he approved of their sin. You're not making a logical, valid argument that leads to this conclusion.
Too much focus on a word and why it means this or that and thus how that translates to the sinner...many are missing the message here. Jesus was and is looking for men and women of faith. The Centurion was generous—built synagogue, he was full of humility—unworthy, and so why then is it so difficult to understand he was also compassionate—for his sick slave. Salvation comes from belief in Jesus and his sovereign authority and in turn then salvation lies with Christ, not with the sinner.
ReplyDelete1 Timothy
ReplyDelete