My Fellow Christians...
People who dislike homosexuals, disapprove of homosexuals, or are afraid of homosexuals for one reason or another, enjoy using their Christian Bibles to excuse their attitudes. Why? Apparently because it gives them permission, and helps them feel righteous and good about themselves while they do it.
"I'm loving the Sinner, but hating the Sin," they say. Which helps them feel close to God, close to Jesus, following nothing more than what their Bibles tell them in Jesus' own language of English. <ironic smile>
Sadly, people who do so have never really read their Bibles, never really thought about the words.
How the words got there. What they meant originally, when the writers wrote them in the original languages (which, believe it or not, were *not English). What the times, and the people, and the cultures, and the politics, and the level of scientific knowledge, and the history was like when the original writers wrote.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident, today, than regarding the question of "What does the Bible say about homosexuals?" Or, most importantly for Evangelical Christians, "What would *Jesus say about homosexuals?"
To support their prejudice against homosexuals, many Christians haul out the Genesis story of Sodom, or the Levitical priestly proscription, or the New Testament writings of St. Paul in Romans:1, or his letter to Timothy, etc. In reply, gay-friendly Christians offer the story of David & Jonathan, or Ruth &
Naomi, or Jesus & The Beloved Disciple.
Unfortunately, all the above passages from the Bible, whether Old Testament or New Testament, whether viewed as anti-gay or pro-gay, are extremely problematical. Pick a scholar -- any scholar -- and you can get an interpretation, backed by reasonable findings, to support your personal view one way or another about *any of the above passages.
There is only *one place in the entire Bible where we can find a glimpse of how Jesus personally felt, or might have felt, about homosexuals and their relationship to Him...their relationship to God, as we Christians know God. It's the New Testament story of the Centurion and his Servant.
The story is told in two separate Gospels in our New Testament: Matthew 8:5-13, and Luke 7:1-10, regarding the Centurion who approaches Jesus so that his "servant" (modern English translation) might be cured. In Matthew's version, the Centurion came directly to Jesus seeking His help. In Luke's version, the Centurion called upon the Elders of Capernaum's Jews, sending them in his place to seek help. In Matthew, Jesus went to meet the Centurion and spoke to him. In Luke, Jesus did not actually meet the Centurion but spoke to the city's Elders about his request, instead. (So much for Biblical inerrancy. <wry smile>)
But whichever version one chooses, the particulars agree: There was a Roman Centurion -- "Commander of 100," a high office in Rome's armies -- whose personal servant was ill unto death and no one had been able to cure him. The Centurion was so distraught that he was willing to seek help from a nomadic "Healer" of whom he had heard.
Upon learning of the Centurion's distress and his plea for help from Jesus. the Lord instantly and without question chooses to act affirmatively. In Matthew's version, the Centurion says in person to Jesus, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my
servant shall be healed," proving the Centurion's simple faith in Jesus' powers.
In Luke's version, the Centurion instead sends word through the Jewish Elders, saying, "...but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed," which equally demonstrates the Centurion's simple faith.
What was the Centurion's disposition at the time? How concerned was he over the impending death of his "servant"?
In Matthew, it is written that "...there came unto him a Centurion, beseeching
him"...
In Luke, it says, "...a certain Centurion's servant, who was dear unto him..."
What should we make of that?
You are a Roman Centurion, a soldier of experience and rank, authorized -- unlike soldiers of lower rank -- to carry with you into the field, and to any far-flung post the Emperor sends you, your own personal servant.
Typically, in Rome's Legions, your servant is a slave, not a freeman. He is male, since women are generally not allowed other than as camp-following whores. He is younger than you, in order to assure your authority and supremacy, but still old enough and strong enough to lift the heavy bronze breastplates and tie the leather thongs that fasten them on your chest and back, tie the greaves on your shins, follow alongside in combat with your spare spear and sword, groom and feed your horse,
etc.
And, because you are a man who has needs, and you are a Roman and a Pagan and your varied gods have no proscriptions against homosexual acts, your servant is also available for sex as and when you deem fit.
(We know for certain, from extra-Biblical writings in voluminous quotes, that Roman officers commonly owned slave-servants who fulfilled *many needs, and that this was customary in that day. This does not mean that the officers were themselves what we would call "homosexual" -- usually, they had lovers or wives back home, safe in Rome. It only means that while away, on campaign, they saw no
religious obstacle to sexual outlet whatever the gender.)
So, even though you are on TDY ("temporary military duty," in mil-speak) in Capernaum, a remote outpost of the Empire, and you could easily find a replacement servant to help with your battle-gear and mess -- all you need do, by law, is grab a likely youth off the street and say, "You are mine; come serve me" -- even so, not all your needs as an Officer can be easily met by just anyone off the street. There is history, long association, and intimate familiarity at work, here.
Would you "beseech" the help of a wandering psychic of a foreign religion for a mere "servant" of yours? Would you hold "dear unto" you a mere servant? Would you humble yourself in front of your own God or Gods, in front of the ignorant natives who were your subjects, just in order to cure a mere servant in a menial position...you, of exalted rank and power?
Not likely. Not if you are a Roman Centurion. You would not, could not, risk the ridicule.
Now, let's consider the actual language given us in the Gospels. This is important to Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians, believing that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God and it cannot lie.
In Matthew, the earlier account, directed to a Greek-speaking Jewish audience, the Greek word given for servant is "pais" -- which means literally "boy", but can also mean "servant", and in the vernacular of the times also meant "lover". In Greek extra-Biblical writings of the time, the word "pais" is used as a euphemism for "boy lover." (In modern English, the word "pederasty" derives partly from "pais".)
Luke, who was writing in a distinctly Greek milieu, changes the word "pais" to the more eros-neutral "doulos" ("servant" or "slave"), presumably sensitive of its homosexual implications to any reader with a Greek cultural background. (It is this rendering which Strong, writing in the pronouncedly anti-gay era of the late 1800s, preferred to use in his famous numbered Concordance.)
Hence, the setting for the story:
A Roman Centurion's "pais" -- presumably his boy servant, lover, partner in a pederastic slave relationship -- is ill unto death. He desperately, beseechingly seeks a cure from what for him is a most unlikely source: A wandering, be-sandaled, Jew, member of a subject tribe, about whom tales have been heard of miraculous "healings."
The Centurion, so desperate is his concern, fastens upon one thing and one thing only: Faith. His raw, pure, unqualified faith that the "holy man" from whom he seeks help is all that He is claimed to be, a man with the power of Divine Healing.
The Centurion *believes.
(NOTE: Please understand that this essay is by no means construable as supporting pederasty or child molestation -- crimes under U.S. law of which I do not and cannot approve. The "pais" in the story could not have been a child, and was certainly at least 16 or so, otherwise he could not have served the Centurion capably. And while even an age such as that would make the relationship illegal under U.S. law today, we must realize that both Roman and Jewish laws and customs pertaining to "age of majority" in the time of Jesus were different.)
Now...what, we must ask, is Jesus' response? Jesus the All-Knowing, Son of God, Omnisicient and Aware?
Does Jesus abjure the Centurion for living in a questionable relationship with his "pais"? No.
Does Jesus ask the Centurion about his designs on the boy, saying, "Until I am satisfied about your relationship, I will not heal him!" No.
Does Jesus say, "I know about you Romans and your 'paises,' and God's Law prevents me from helping you unless you convert your ways"? No.
Does Jesus even insist that the boy, who was at the very least a slave, a thrall to a representative of a foreign military power, first be made a freeman by the Centurion? No.
He simply *heals* the boy.
And upon so doing, Jesus says: (Matthew's version) "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel....Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." (Luke's version) "... He marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, 'I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.'"
And so I ask...with Jesus' example, which was given to us in not merely one but *two separate Gospels, independently verified and agreeing with each other in all but the most insignificant details...
How should we Christians react when we meet a homosexual who says, "Jesus is my Savior" but he is still a homosexual?
How should we respond to a homosexual who says, "Would you like to join me and my love at our Church next Sunday?"
How should we reply to a homosexual who says, "I'm getting married to my partner, and we'd love to have you with us at the ceremony"?
Or, to bring the issue home to today's politics...how should we feel about a homosexual who says, "Your vote at the polls is depriving me of the rights and benefits of marriage which I and my beloved seek under God and U.S. Law"?
In the hope this essay will bless you and your loved ones,
Buzz Kelly
1/2/2000
Copyright January 2, 2000, by Buzz Kelly. All rights reserved,
except that free distribution via any medium is permitted as long as
author's credit is given and no profit is involved.
