This past week, I was made aware of an argument, made by some, to contend that Jesus implicitly approved of a homosexual relationship. The account is Luke 7. I would like to examine that text and the argument.
In my research, it seems that the argument has two main features, both based on the meaning of Greek words. The first word is pais. Thayer defines the term — 1) a child, boy or girl. 2) A servant or slave.
The contention is that an extended definition of the term, among the Greeks and Romans, referred to a sex slave among social elites and soldiers. It is true there is evidence that Roman culture was accepting of homosexuality, as long as the man was in a dominant role. Hence, the use of slaves or boys, in the relationship. Society was not as kind for the submissive partner. So, using the term pais to refer to the submissive partner did happen, at least in extra-Biblical usage.
In Luke 7, the term is used interchangeably with the Greek word doulos, servant, slave. In Matthew 8, the servant is referred to as a pais. In comparison, noting other New Testament passages, the use of pais in Luke 15:26 most probably referred to one of the servants, and in Matthew 14, it refers to a number of Herod’s servants.
The other word that makes up the thrust of the argument is the Greek word entimos translated “dear” in the NKJV. “And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die” (Luke 7:2). The word entimos is defined by Thayer — “held in honor, prized; hence, precious.”
There are other passages where the term is used. For example, it is used regarding Jesus Christ as the living stone, chosen by God (1 Peter 2:4). In Luke 14:8, it refers to the most honored guest at the wedding feast. In Philippians 2:9 it was used of the man Epaphroditus who was to be held in esteem for his work as a Christian.
Here is the thrust of the argument made:
-
Homosexuality among Roman soldiers was rampant.
-
The word pais has been used extra-biblically to refer to a slave who was forced into a sexual relationship.
-
In Luke 7, the man was a centurion, and had a sex-slave that he loved.
-
Therefore, Jesus tacitly approved of homosexuality.
Rebuttal
There are several problems with the above—historical, logical and contextual. Let’s examine them quickly.
First, an examination of history reveals that the region where the centurion was found was in Galilee (Capernaum). In Roman times, the region was “self-ruled”, by the Herod family. While the context shows that the centurion was not Jewish, there is no evidence that Roman soldiers were stationed in Capernaum. Though a gentile, there is no evidence that the centurion was a Roman soldier, thus the historical argument regarding homosexuality among Roman soldiers is irrelevant.
It might also be noted that the centurion was well liked by the Jews. They referred to him as one who is “deserving”, and who had built them a synagogue. It does not make sense that the Jews would hold in high regard any man who was a homosexual, as the law of Moses considered this an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” In the very next verse bestiality is also condemned, giving a moral equivalence that would not allow for a Jew to speak highly of such a man or relationship. “Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it” (18:23).
Second, there is no defensible logic in taking uncommon definitions of words, and inserting them into a context without the context demanding it. The primary definitions would lead to the obvious translation given. A soldier had a slave who was important to him, and Jesus healed the man.
The other possibility requires Jesus to be accepting of a man who forced sex upon another (possibly young, which is pedophilia), while both Jesus and the other Jews in Capernaum gave tacit approval of the practice by not speaking out against it.
It is bad hermeneutics (interpretation) to make such assumptions and leaps of logic. Too often people read into the text (eisegesis) what they want to be there, rather than taking from the text (exegesis) what it obviously says. Remember, to interpret with an agenda is to twist the scriptures.
Finally, the context does not allow this interpretation. In context, we refer first to the immediate context, in which the Jewish community in Capernaum held the centurion in high esteem. There would also be the context of Jesus’ life, who kept every jot and tittle of the law. Sexual sin of any kind was not accepted by Him. Jesus condemned sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman. He does so clearly in Matthew 19:1-9. The Greek word, porneia, translated “sexual immorality” in the NKJV, refers to unlawful sexual intercourse. Any such activity, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bestial is condemned by Jesus.
Remember that the remainder of the New Testament (remote context) likewise consists of truth that comes from God. Jesus affirmed that the Holy Spirit would follow Him after He died, and guide the apostles in their writing and teaching. Further, that what the Holy Spirit would teach them would not differ at all from Jesus’ teaching. Consider Jesus words about the Spirit, “He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14-15). When we read Paul (Romans 1:18-ff; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10-11), Peter (2 Peter 2:6), and Jude (Jude 7) condemn homosexuality, they are doing so by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them as directed by Jesus Himself.
Simply put, there is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus approved of Homosexuality. Both He and the Holy Spirit very clearly condemned it as sinful.
