definition of "pais"

[vir litterarum]

I was recently told that the word "pais" could mean a male concubine such as when it is used in Matthew chapter 8 in the story of the centaurion. Has anyone ever heard of "pais" being used in this manner?

[Kasper]

"p(a)edicabo ego vos et..."?

[Chris Weimer]

Male concubine is the extended meaning. Often, pais is used as a male slave child, sexual or non-sexual.

[vir litterarum]

So, without any contextual aid, it is impossible to distinguish between a sexual and non-sexual slave child?

"p(a)edicabo ego vos et..."?

Isn't that from Catullus, "I will f*** you..."
Why are you citing that qoute?

[annis]

Why are you citing that qoute?

The Romans evidently couldn't match the native genius of the Greeks for sexual vocabulary, and so borrowed a lot from them. Pedico is ultimately derived from παῖς.

[Kasper]

So, without any contextual aid, it is impossible to distinguish between a sexual and non-sexual slave child?

"p(a)edicabo ego vos et..."?

Isn't that from Catullus, "I will f*** you..."
Why are you citing that qoute?

it's not so much "I will f*** you", as "I will bugger you". I believe a long time ago the good Benissimus translated it as 'i will make you my boy'.

[vir litterarum]

the expletive,however, to me at least best translates Catullus sexual hostility which is the heart of the poem. "I will sodomize" is probably the best literal translation.

[Kasper]

Haha! now we are talking about an interpretation of the poem! that's a whole different matter. I haven't read the poem in quite some time, but doesn't Mr C react to his friends accusations that he is too effeminate by a range of sexual 'expletives', while claiming that just because his poems may talk of kisses and cuddles, he is still a real man?

I really just intended to point out a connexion between the word 'pais' and sex with boys.

[Bert]

Male concubine is the extended meaning. Often, pais is used as a male slave child, sexual or non-sexual.

Or female slave, or son, or daughter. It is used in prophesy of Christ as Son of God.
I don't know how common the sexual extended(?) meaning is but I did not see a reference in the lexica I checked. (LSJ was not available on Perseus.)

[vir litterarum]

LSJ just defines it as a slave and does not refer to whether it is sexual or non-sexual

[Helma]

Male concubine is the extended meaning. Often, pais is used as a male slave child, sexual or non-sexual.

Or female slave, or son, or daughter. It is used in prophesy of Christ as Son of God.
I don't know how common the sexual extended(?) meaning is but I did not see a reference in the lexica I checked. (LSJ was not available on Perseus.)

Bert:
http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philo ... 1:4:68.lsj

παῖς, also παῦς (q. v.), παιδός, á½￾, ἡ, gen. pl. παίδων, Dor. παιδῶν Greg.Cor.p.317 S.; dat. pl. παισί, Ep. παίδεσσι Od.3.381, etc.; in early Ep. freq. disyll. in nom. πάϊς, e. g. when forming part of two different feet, Il.2.609, 5.704, etc.; prob. also in the fifth foot, 9.57, 11.389; and before bucolic diaeresis, 2.205, al.; also in Lyr., Sapph.38, 85; and in Boeot., IG7.690, al. (Tanagra), cf. πῆς; πάϊ [á¾°á¿‘] Od.24.192 (παιδ- is never disyll. in oblique cases in Hom.); acc. πάϊν A. R.4.697, AP3.8 (Inscr. Cyzic.), 9.125; gen. παϊδός Epigr. ap. Luc.Symp.41; dat. παϊδί prob. in Anacr.17:
I in relation to Descent, child, whether son, Il. 2.205,609, al. (with special reference to the father, opp. τέκνον, q.v.): pl., Th.1.4, etc.; or daughter, Il.1.20,443, 3.175; παῖδες ἄÏ￾Ï￾ενες καὶ θήλειαι Pl.Lg.788a; παῖς, opp. κόÏ￾α, Berl.Sitzb.1927.7 (Locr., v. B.C.); of an adopted son, ἀλλά σε παῖδα ποιεÏ￾μην Il.9.494; παίδων παῖδες, τοί κεν μετόπισθε γένωνται 20.308, cf. Pi.N.7.100, Inscr.Cypr.135.11 H., etc.; ἈγήνοÏ￾ος παῖδες á¼￾κ παίδων E.Ph.281; freq. in orators of legal issue, Isoc.19.9, Is.7.31, etc.; of animals, A.Ag.50 (anap.).

2 metaph., ἀμπέλου Ï€., of wine, Pi.N.9.52; χοÏ￾ῶν á¼￾Ï￾αστὴς κισσὸς á¼￾νιαυτοῦ δὲ παῖς Chaerem.5; á½€Ï￾είας πέτÏ￾ας Ï€., of Echo, E.Hec.1110; á½…Ï￾κου Ï€. ἀνώνυμος, of the penalty of perjury, Orac. ap. Hdt.6.86.γ; ἄναυδοι Ï€. τᾶς ἀμιάντου, of fishes, A.Pers.578 (lyr.).

3 periphr., οἱ Λυδῶν παῖδες sons of the Lydians, i. e. the Lydians, Hdt.1.27, cf. 5.49; Ï€. Ἑλλήνων A.Pers.402; οἱ [Ἀσκληπιοῦ] Ï€., i. e. physicians, Pl.R.407e; οἱ ζωγÏ￾άφων Ï€. painters, Id.Lg.769b; παῖδες ῥητόÏ￾ων orators, Luc. Anach.19; Ï€. ἰατÏ￾ῶν, Ï€. πλαστῶν καὶ γÏ￾αφέων, Id.Dips.5, Im.9; cf. υἱός 2.

II in relation to Age, child, boy or girl, νέος Ï€. Od.4.665; παῖδες νεαÏ￾οί Il.2.289; σμίκÏ￾α Ï€. Sapph.34: with another Subst., Ï€. συφοÏ￾βός boy-swineherd, Il.21.282; παῖδα κόÏ￾ην γαμεῖν Ar.Lys.595; á¼￾ν παισὶ νέοισι Ï€. Pi.N.3.72; Ï€. ἔτ' ὤν A.Ch. 755, cf. Il.11.710; ἔτι Ï€. Pl.Prt.310e; παιδὸς μηδὲν βελτίων ib.342e: distd. from παιδίον, μειÏ￾άκιον, Hp.Hebd.5, cf. X.Smp.4.17, Cyr.8.7.6, 1.2.4; á¼￾κ παιδός from a child, Pl.R.374c; á¼￾κ παιδὸς εἰς γῆÏ￾ας Aeschin.1.180; á¼￾κ τῶν παίδων εá½￾θÏ￾Ï‚ Pl.Lg.694d, cf. R.386a; ἀκοÏ￾ων τῶν παίδων εá½￾θÏ￾Ï‚ Id.Lg.642b; εá½￾θὺς á¼￾κ παίδων á¼￾ξελθών D.21.154; ἡλικίαν ἔχειν τὴν ἄÏ￾τι á¼￾κ Ï€. to be just out of one's childhood, X.HG5.4.25; á¼￾κ μικÏ￾ῶν Ï€. Arist.Pol. 1336a14; [ἩÏ￾ακλῆς] á¼￾ν παισὶν ὄφεις ἀπέκτεινεν D.C.56.36; á¼￾ν παισὶ (v.l. παιδὶ） ποιμαίνων Hdn.6.8.1; χοÏ￾ηγεῖν παισί (cf. χοÏ￾ηγέω 11): prov., τοῦτο κἂν Ï€. γνοίη Pl.Euthd.279d; δῆλον τοῦτό γε ἤδη καὶ παιδί Id.Smp.204b; παῖδας [τοὺς Ï€Ï￾ὸ αá½￾τοῦ] ἀπέφηνε Luc.Peregr.11, cf. Alex.4; ἔνι τις καὶ á¼￾ν ἡμῖν Ï€., of the superstitious fears of a child, Pl. Phd.77e, cf. Porph.Abst.1.41.

III in relation to Condition, slave, servant, man or maid (of all ages), παῖ, παῖ A.Ch.653, cf. Ar. Ach.395, Epicr.5.2, etc.; παῖ, παιδίον Ar.Nu.132: pl., of the crew of a ship, D.33.8. (From ΠαÏ￾ις, cf. παῦÏ￾ος, Lat. puer.）

[Bombichka]

there isn't any indication that in this particular passage of Matthew παῖς should be taken to mean anything else than a "child".

I do not see why, then, we should force the passage to imply more than it says at first glance.

by the way, I don't recall to have met, during my reading of the Gospels, an occurrence of παῖς in the meaning of "servant, slave".
my impression is that this was a classical/classicizing usage rather than a meaning of the word in the current speech of the day more or less reflected in the NT.

maybe someone with better knowledge of Biblical Greek will confirm or refute my impressions.

[Bert]

Luke 7 uses pais in one verse and doulos in another for the same person.
Matthew 8 tells of the same incident and also uses pais.
Luke 15:26 is more likely one of his servants than one of his childeren.
Matthew 14:2 uses pais for what has to be servants.

[Bombichka]

thanks for clarifying that, Bert!

it seems, then, that in our passage (Matthew 8 ) παῖς could mean "servant" after all, since Luke 7 where δοῦλος is used obviously refers to the same incident. I should have been more careful with the scriptural cross-references which are neatly ordered in the margins of my Nestle-Aland edition...

still, had it not been for the parallel beteen Matthew and Luke, nothing in the Matthew passage alone suggests what exactly is meant by παῖς. I wonder why this is so and why the author of the Gospel used such an ambivalent term when he could have easily escaped any ambiguity by simply using another word.
after all, clarity has always been considered a virtue of Greek prose, and this should hold true especially when one aimed at converting people of relatively humble origin and non-Greek provenance (as was the case of the Gospels, I imagine).

[BibleShockers]

I think you might find it helpful to relate the term to the semantic range of the English word "boy."

[Alexandros Regis]

Following the posted arguments, linguistically, I would assume that reading Pais to mean the Centurion's homosexual lover would be a fair interpretation of Pais in this context-- that is given the ambiguity of the word, and that the author could have used a more precise word for a mere servant. I also thing the cultural context supports this meaning. Given our understanding of Greek and Roman society in the first century and in the hostile atmosphere of Judea -- why would a centurion bother to go ask a Jewish rabbi about a mere servant? I suppose that just as the word pais might mean merely servant, there might have been a Roman centurion inclined to begging for the a transient healer to heal his servant, slave boy. -- lol Given the linguistic arguments and given the culture, I'm betting my money on this being a very special kind of "boy" to this centurion. Especially, if as is likely, the dude is Greek.lol Sorry, I could not resist that ancient barb.

[joja]

Re: MATTHEW 8:5

The Centurian knew that Jesus was so powerful
to heal his servant with just speaking the word,
and knew all about his life too. Do you think that
if the Centurian was living in sodomy with his servant
that he would even come face to face with Jesus and
dare to ask such a favor for his servant, knowing that
Jesus who is the Word, condemns sodomy and those
who practice it?
What an insinuation to make!
If you want to know the Greek translation
of a Biblical word, you must get into the Spirit
of the Word.
And be careful not to blasheme.
----------------------
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum,
there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick
of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord,
I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof:
but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me:
and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another,
Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this,
and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them
that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found
so great faith, no, not in Israel.

...13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way;
and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

[conqui]

Getting back to the topic of this forum (not the blasphemous false statements of JOJA), I know very little about Greek but quite a lot about the Roman army and politics. The short version is that Centurions were not allowed to be married. They were not allowed to have ever been married. Therefore they did not have children. No Centurion would EVER admit to having an illegitimate child either, because at best they would lose their position, and perhaps be banished or exiled. However, it was not unknown for a Centurion to fall in love with a woman in the area he was serving in, and after his "commission" expired he would marry her. The reasoning was both practical and political. Firstly & most importantly, Centurions were selected from the general geographic area in which they served, were made Roman citizens if they weren't already, and marriage would potentially involve a high military officer in local political intrigue which the Romans didn't think would encourage loyalty to Rome rather than to local political intrigues.

Centurions were high-ranking officers, and had servants; in the ancient world, including Jews in Judea/Israel, servants were almost always slaves (often indentured, "bondservants", those who couldn't pay their debts; just as often, captured during a military operation and kept as a slave rather than killed). Often, a Centurion's slaves were servants to the men under his command as well, including for "sexual favors".

So "pais" in Matthew could not possibly be the Centurion's child. I would think it would be understood as "boy" in the sense of having a particular fondness for the person, and a sexual relationship would certainly be implied. Elsewhere in the Matthew passage the pais is refered to as "doulos", the formal word for "slave", but the Centurion himselff uses a term of endearment. This endearment is also clear in how others describe the sick slave to Jesus.

I can't help but scold JOJA for his post: he repeats false and anti-Christian teachings. Nowhere does Jesus condemn sodomy or anything even hinting at homosexuality. And if we take Jesus at his word (that means he is not lying in order to lead us into temptation and false teachings), He came to do away with rigid adherence to Old Testament laws, EXCEPT to have no other god before Him/God, love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As for whether a sinful Centurion would dare to seek out Jesus, where in the world did you, joja, get the idea that the NT presents Jesus as unapproachable by sinful people. This is the wackiest twisting of the NT I have seen in a long time. This forum is seeking to seek out the meaning of NT text, not to be twisted by preconceived homophobic falsehoods.

[jaihare]

I can't help but scold JOJA for his post: he repeats false and anti-Christian teachings. Nowhere does Jesus condemn sodomy or anything even hinting at homosexuality. And if we take Jesus at his word (that means he is not lying in order to lead us into temptation and false teachings), He came to do away with rigid adherence to Old Testament laws, EXCEPT to have no other god before Him/God, love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As for whether a sinful Centurion would dare to seek out Jesus, where in the world did you, joja, get the idea that the NT presents Jesus as unapproachable by sinful people. This is the wackiest twisting of the NT I have seen in a long time. This forum is seeking to seek out the meaning of NT text, not to be twisted by preconceived homophobic falsehoods.

Gotta say I agree. I was surprised to read above that Jesus condemned homosexuals. It was he who said that some people are eunuchs from birth. What is a eunuch from birth? These are people born without sexual affection for women, who could be trusted over a harem. With all of his preaching about turning the other cheek, about showing mercy to all (except for the religiously hypocritical), spending time with prostitutes without condemning them, and these subtle hints about his ideas regarding people who are not "normal" (in addition to this text in Matthew, where he clearly doesn't get upset that the centurion makes this request), I just don't see a Jesus who hates homosexuals or condemns homosexuality. That just doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the Gospels. Rather, it is in Paul's letters that such opinions surface. I find often that Christians can/do not distinguish between what Jesus said and what others wrote in the NT.

It's not uncommon to hear "Jesus said" followed by a quote from Paul or John.

[Nooj]

Male concubine is the extended meaning. Often, pais is used as a male slave child, sexual or non-sexual.

Or female slave, or son, or daughter. It is used in prophesy of Christ as Son of God.
I don't know how common the sexual extended(?) meaning is but I did not see a reference in the lexica I checked. (LSJ was not available on Perseus.)

The sexual meaning is implicit in their status as slaves. Slaves could be used as sex objects in any occasion.

[ligeia]

It is my understanding that it can/does simply mean small boy, or male child; I think to assume something sexual in the word to support your views is going way beyond, "reaching." If it were referring to someone's little girl, we would not be having this discussion about gay relationships. I have two boys; at one time they were both "little boys." People have children; they start out small; that is all it means, nothing more, nothing less.

[MFP]

The problem, ligeia, is that you can only use contemporary English usage as a guide to Koine Greek with the greatest of caution. If this conversation were being conducted in Italian, the translation of the Greek term "pais" would be "ragazzo." In Italian, when one speaks of his or her "ragazzo" or "ragazza," one is usually talking about a boyfriend of girlfriend, not young offspring. In contemporary English-speaking cultures, where there is no legal slavery, the term "boy" usually refers to a child. But in American English of the 19th-century, "boy" could refer to a male slave. In fact, "boy" continued to be used as a demeaning expression for African-American men well into the 20th-century, precisely because of the lingering connotations of slavery. I might add that, in some gay circles, a man might refer to his sexual partner or to others as "boy." It all depends on the social context of who is speaking....

There is no doubt that the "pais" in this passage is a slave. Whether he is also the Centurion's' son or his sexual partner is a possibility left open by the nature of the language. It might be impossible to prove the point, but so long as the ambiguity is respected, to infer that the slave is the Centurion's lover is not "reaching."

[LoveKnowsNoBonds]

I personally believe in this situation with the passage taken from the NT of the Bible I would have to say it means servant/slave as in the KJV. Do I believe it was gay couple? That can only be based on theory and I will give mine: I believe they were based on these statements and Roman History.
1. As has already been pointed out centaurions were not allowed to marry during service and had to not be married to even be a centaurion. This also implies that they do not have kids there would be no way possible.
2. I have yet to hear any implications that Romans had any problems with homosexuality. In fact of all I have ever heard of Roman History it is pretty common there, expected and accepted. I also believe it was literally practiced though I could be wrong. Now-a-days I really do not know how it is but I am basing this on what I have heard and grown up knowing.
3. I will agree with only one thing JOJA said the Centaurion knew of Jesus and his ability he had to. The rest I say JOJA needed to keep to himself.
4. Now I am going to post a passage from the Bible as an explanation to #3:

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

The Centaurion obviously knew of Jesus work and that he could heal people. And there is a few implications that is of homosexual orientation and that the servant is infact his lover. Based on the fact that once a slave was no longer able to carry out the demands of their Master they were killed this seems to be a very strong concern for the male servant. It is very obvious the centaurion had strong and loving feelings for the servant as he did not follow tradition and kill the servant but had him healed so he could live.
5. This statement hits it kind of home

and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

As pointed out this can include sexual acts I personally believe that he was implying to Jesus that they were gay. As he said 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.

As I pointed out in #3 and why in #4 he knew of Jesus and his work and he obviously knew Jesus was Jewish and practiced Judaism and it is very possible that he knew that he was not worthy of Jesus for his sinful ways of homosexuality and that it was condemned in Israel and the punishment is death. I personally do not in anyway believe the Roman Empire would have cared that the man had sex with another man the only problem was that he had a love interested and was acting on it and failing his obligations as a centaurion but that's about it but I doubt even that as I have read it is very common that centaurions would have homosexual sex while in service to make up for the sex they were not getting with a female. But apparently in this case he fell in love in the process. I think he was afraid of the fact that he was committing sodomy and did not want Jesus in his home because of it. But apparently Jesus didn't care as healed the servant and pretty much allowed it to continue. And as for this:

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It pretty much is clear that it does not matter what you or who you are as long as you have faith as this man has you will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven and that even if those who think they should have the kingdom based on very little faith will be cast out and will cry and make themselves suffer for their ignorance.

Pretty much that's it the translation in the Bible for pais is servant and it is a male servant that is suffering and the centaurion has had homosexual sex with the pais and is in love with him.

[Rafe]

Can we all knock off the silly arguments and just read the scholarly standard on Greek words of the NT?

According to BDAG 5497-παῖς:

1. a young pers. normally below the age of puberty, w. focus on age rather than social status, boy, youth

2. one’s own immediate offspring, child as ‘son’ or ‘daughter’

a. of a son
b. of a daughter

3. one who is committed in total obedience to another, slave, servant

a. of slaves and personal attendants slave, servant

Nope, nothing about a homosexual lover there.

[James T.]

Regardless of whether "pais" refers to simply a servant or a homosexual lover, one cannot responsibly interpret the passage to mean that Jesus condoned homosexuality.

Jesus healed many people regardless of their ethnicity, political ties, gender, age, etc... When Jesus healed the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7, he wasn't condoning everything in the Syrophoenician culture. When Jesus had mercy on the woman caught in the very act of adultery (John , he wasn't condoning her adultery. When Jesus raised Jarius' (a ruler of the synagogue) daughter from the dead in Luke 8, he wasn't condoning everything that Jarius may or may not have taught at the synagogue. When Jesus healed the palsied man in Mark 2 that had been lowed down through a hole made in the roof of the house he was teaching in, he wasn't condoning destruction to another's property. When Jesus ate with publicans, sinners and most likely prostitute (Mark 2), he wasn't condoning their lifestyles, in fact, he actually called them to repentance (2:17).

Jesus broke many cultural norms such as speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. Good Jewish men didn't frequently talk to women outside of their immediate family in public, especially not to Samaritan woman, and especially not to women of a questionable reputation. However, Jesus talked to her in spite of the cultural taboos. Did this mean that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to start talking to adulterous, Gentile women in public?

On another occasion, Jesus healed a leprous man and actually touched him in doing so. Jesus could have healed the man with his words alone but he went out of his way to touch the man. This was unheard of in Jesus' day. Did this mean that Jesus was promoting the touching of leprous people, i.e. the spreading of a horrible disease of which there was no known cure?

In the case of the centurion's servant and/or homosexual partner as found in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, can one responsibly interpret Jesus' healing as a commentary of his view on homosexuality? I think not. If Jesus was condoning the centurion's possible homosexual relationship, then we might as well interpret that Jesus was condoning the Roman occupation and treatment of the Jews. Don't forget that the Romans were hated by the Jews due to the occupation and bloodshed. The Romans worshiped false gods, desecrated Jewish holy places, and enslaved many Jewish freedom fighters. Was Jesus condoning all these things as well?

I think a responsible interpretation is that Jesus had power to heal, Jesus had the power to heal even over great distances, and Jesus did not discriminate over who he healed.

Furthermore, I believe that based on the context, one can clearly see that Jesus was placing a greater emphasis on the centurion's ethnicity than on his possible sexual orientation. Matthew 8:10-12 was a direct assault on the idea of Jewish exclusivism. The Old Testament contains many passages that indicate God's plan of salvation for all peoples, both Jew and Gentile. In fact, the Jews were to be a light to the Gentiles; however, the both failed at that and even forgot their calling due in part to Gentile hostility.

All throughout the Gospels, Jesus poked holes in the idea of Jewish exclusivity. The purpose of this miracle in Matthew 8 was similar and unique. First it was similar in the fact that it was meant to demonstrate Jesus' divinity. This was common to all of Jesus' miracle. Secondly, it was unique in the fact that it displayed Jesus' power to heal over great distances. Finally, it was unique in the fact that it showed the Jesus did not discriminate against healing Gentiles. If its purpose was to be a clear commentary on Jesus' views of homosexuality, then it really missed the mark. Readers would have to go to great lengths to interpret it that way.

Furthermore, we see in Luke 7 that the centurion was one who was deemed worthy by the elders of the Jews because he loved the Jewish nation and had built for them a synagogue. Based on our knowledge of Jewish culture and their view of homosexuality, it doesn't seem likely that the elders of the Jews would be so quick to shower praise on a man especially for the purpose of sparing his homosexual partners life. Many commentators believe that this centurion was a convert to Judaism based on his recognition of Israel as a nation, his love for them and his contributions in building a synagogue. Therefore, if this centurion was a convert to Judaism, then homosexuality would almost certainly be ruled out.

In addition, Luke's account points out that the centurion deemed himself unworthy to have Jesus enter his house and he deemed himself unworthy to actually come to Jesus, but instead had the elders of the Jews and his friends act as go-betweens. There are a number of ways to interpret the centurion's two-fold view of his unworthiness and of Jesus' power and worthiness. First, we could assume he was a homosexual and ashamed of his sin. Second, we could assume that he was ashamed of being a Gentile, even more a Roman centurion. Third, we could assume that he was in tight with the Jewish leaders and didn't want a radical like Jesus seen in his house even though he secretly believed in him. Fourth, we could assume that he was just a very humble person. Fifth, we could assume that he regarded Jesus as the Messiah and was so humbled by the knowledge of God that he couldn't bear to be in his presence. This last view might seem extreme, but if one has great, reverential fear of God, then they will cower in his presence. Some, all or none of these assumptions might be correct; but it is clear that one cannot dogmatically say that it was solely based on the centurion's homosexuality.

Wrapping up, it is interesting to note that Luke, who was a doctor and more familiar with Greek and who's accept was written primarily to a Gentile audience, uses the word "doulos" 4 to 1 over "pais"; and Matthew, which was written to a primarily Jewish audience uses the work "pais". Multiple things could be inferred from this, but either way it is interesting to note.

In conclusion, it is always best to interpret any passage in light of all that the Bible teaches. This is one of the fundamental principles in biblical hermeneutics. One cannot arrive at any one conclusion about any one subject based on any one passage. God's view on homosexuality [i.e. Jesus' view] must be interpreted in light of all that the Bible teaches, not in light of a controversial interpretation of one Greek word.

---------------
And here's the part where the non-believes and false-professors will get offended.
---------------

Just in case you were wondering, the Bible condones one type of sexual behavior: heterosexual relations within the bonds of a God-honoring marriage. All other forms of sexuality must be repented of--adultery, masturbation, fornication, perverted thoughts, bestiality, polygamy, homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, incest, pornography, fantasizing, etc… Yes, perverted thoughts are just as much a sexual sin as incest and adultery. God's original intention was one man and one woman for life. All sin is a deviation from God's original intention. Lying is a deviation from God's intention of truth. Theft is a deviation from God's intention of contentment. Homosexuality and the other a fore mentioned sexual deviations are all in direct opposition to God's plan for sexuality.

Stop trying to justify your wicked lifestyles. Repent and submit to the God of the Bible, who hates all your sexual deviations so much that he crushed his perfect Son in order to rightly punish them.

[Kasper]

James

A well-reasoned and well-considered post, I thought. Until, of course, we get to the second part, but each to their own believes.

Kasper

[GodsChild82]

I won't go as far to say that it is a fact that the Centurion in the above discussed passages was referring to his "boy lover" or "sexual slave". But I will say that, as MFP has said above, that it is definately not "reaching" to say that there's a good possiblilty that when the word pais was used in this particular situation that it referred to the 'servant' as being the Centurion's lover. To read above what MFP has explained where not only does the translation of the Greek word pais translate into other languages moreso as a term that is used for someone for whom you have a sexual relationship with, but also the fact that LoveKnowsNoBonds brought up of the context of the passages and how the 'servant' was described. The 'servant' was described in Luke 7:2 as being "valued highly" or "dear unto him" which is translated from the Greek word entimos that was used in this particular passage. The word entimos is where the word in English Intimacy was formed, which implies that this 'servant' was very 'close' to the Centurion. Usually when the word 'Intimacy' is used to describe the relationship between two people who are not related, it's usually a romantic relationship; which is why I say that the word entimos along with the word pais to describe this 'servant' leans towards him being the Centurion's sexual partner.

And to reply to James, yes Jesus did heal many people regardless of ethnicity, political ties, gender, age, etc. and the reason why is because Jesus does not judge you according to your earthly nature or earthly distinctions. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a sin in the New Covenant, for in the new we live by spirit and not by body (flesh, earthly distinctions). That's why Galatians 3:28 states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." You can not say that a person cannot be in a loving relationship with someone who is of the same gender when God doesn't see gender. God judges according to your spiritual nature not your earthly nature, and the only thing that makes me a female is my earthly fleshly parts (vagina), which will pass away. Romans 8:5 "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit." I live according to the spirit not by body, not by my race, not by my gender, but by my spirit.

People are so quick to say "Well, homosexuality is so unnatural", unnatural how I ask? In the sense of earthly nature? Or spiritual nature? What is natural in the spirit is not natural in the earthly sense..understand that! 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So, be careful not to be a natural man who doesn't understand the spiritual realm of things. In Jude 1:19 it speaks of people who think in the earthly nature way by saying "These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." Are you one of the ones who divide? The Devil is loving the fact that we as Christians are divided by the topic of Homosexuality merely because people won't put down there own personal taboos and really read what the BIBLE says about it (in Greek and Aramaic).

And yes James, those people Jesus healed and spoke to, he told them to turn from their sin in whatever scriptures you are referring to. But notice this, does Jesus ever tell the Centurion to turn from his sin?? No, he doesn't. Why you ask? Maybe because Jesus did not consider Homosexuality to be a sin. Especially because the Old Mosaic Law was not for the Greeks to follow anyways...it was for the Israelities to follow. So, the Centurion was not under the "Old Law" at anytime.

James, you say that "God's original intention was one man and one woman for life." Please show me the scripture where it actually says that. I'm waiting... There were multiple types of "marriages" in the Bible and they consisted of more than "one man and one woman". Don't believe me...see for yourself http://www.religioustolerance.org/biblemarriage.jpg People jump to the Creation Story, saying that this is the way we are to be, Adam and Eve. But remember we are now in the New, no longer the Old where we were ruled by the flesh (body, earthly nature). The Creation Story is dull and void in terms of how we are to be ... 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a NEW CREATION; the old has gone, the new has come!"

Also, understand the only forms of sexuality that are sin are "sexual immorality"...let's break down what those words mean. The word sexual is self explainatory. The word immorality..okay break it down..immoral means "without law" because moral mean law. Okay so 'sexual immorality' means 'sex without law'. Okay well what is the only law of the NEW COVENANT... love!!! So sexual immorality means sex without love. How do we know what love is? 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 tells us God definition. So, as long as you follow that definition of love when having sexual relations with a person, it's not sin. PRIME EXAMPLE: If you are selfish when having sex, it's sexual immorality, even if you are married to the person. Why? Because love is not selfish, so therefore that is sexual immorality. So, don't get it twisted....if I am a gay person who treats my partner with love during sexual intercourse and I know that my partner has the spirit of God in them (1 Corinthians 6:16 speaks of this) then it CANNOT be a sin. Sorry James. Just saying, brother. I love you and all but you need to study your Bible just a little bit more. God Bless you all.

[GodsChild82]

To me, it seems that heterosexual people who are against homosexual marriages have a problem with it partially due to a want of their marriage to seem "holy" so they can keep their "holier than thou" attitude. In actuality, what they think makes a marriage "holy" is not the case. For example, heterosexual people are so quick to use Genesis 2:24 to say "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." But understand in the NEW, flesh doesn't count for much. So, if you think your marriage is "holy" because you are united "in the flesh", you are sadly mistaken. The only union in the NEW that is "holy" is one of spirit, since we live by spirit and not flesh. John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." This is how flesh is seen in the NEW, it counts for nothing (doesn't profit anyone).
There is no gender in the spirit, gender is something of the flesh (earthly, worldly nature) and 2 Corinthians 5:16 even tells us that we should not regard people due to their flesh...I will give you different Bibles translations so you can clearly see the point of this passage:

NIV Version "So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer."

NLT Version "So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. At one time we thought of Christ merely from a human point of view. How differently we know him now!"

King James Version "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."

And the Aramaic Bible in Plain English Version is the best "Now therefore, we do not know a person by the body, and if we have known The Messiah in the body, from now on we do not even know him so."

"By the body" shows that a person's body (race, gender, etc.) is what flesh is when spoken about in the New Covenant, and it's very evident that we are not to live according to the flesh because God does not live according to it for God is a spiritual being, not of this earth (world). Human beings in the OLD did live according to flesh, why you ask? Because when Adam and Eve bit that "apple" (whether literal or not), they signed a contract with the Devil and humankind was ruled by the body in the OLD. As soon as the apple was bit, Adam and Eve lost their "spirit". Why do you think they said we feel naked and realized their earthly physical state only after they bit the apple, because they lost their spirit and became mere fleshly beings. So, yes, the OLD Law had a lot of laws to control a person in the flesh, because that was the state humans were in at that time. Now that we are in the NEW, Jesus gave our spirits back to us through Faith and Faith alone. There were even certain people in the Old that had spirit, but only because they had true faith. Like for example Moses, Moses was exempt from the actual Old law. How do we know that he was? Well, remember the story of when Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for having a Cushite wife, which was against the Old law. Did God tell Moses that he was wrong for having the Cushite wife...No God didn't! Why...because Moses had true faith, and he had spirit which none of the other Israelites had.
Not only did God not tell Moses he was wrong, but he cursed Miriam with leprosy for even speaking against someone of spirit, which was Moses. Moses had to pray for Miriam to go back to normal. Let's see why God did what he did:

“When a prophet of the Lord is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.
But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

Notice that Moses was exempt not because he was a mere prophet, but because of his faith and spirit. So, this shows that the Israelites were spoken to by God in 'riddles' because they did not have spirit and would not understand, but the Old Law was only a bunch of 'riddles' and 'examples' of things to come and not the reality of what we are to follow. But those of us who have spirit, like in the NEW we have, we now don't need 'riddles' like those in the Old with only body and flesh needed. Colossians 2 talks about this:

Verse 8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

Verse 13-17 "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I write all of this extra stuff to help you; to make sure you do not become one of the ones who are spoken about in 1 Timothy 4:
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed."

God Bless you all.

[Hurricanecosmo]

John said;
"Stop trying to justify your wicked lifestyles. Repent and submit to the God of the Bible, who hates all your sexual deviations so much that he crushed his perfect Son in order to rightly punish them."

and also indicated that you could not have only one passage in the Bible mean anything out of context and while that is true in most cases, and I will add not only with the Bible, there is one passage, one sentence, that says it all, with or without the rest of the Bible, and it is the one John truly messed up.

The passage is "for God so LOVED the world, that he gave His only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). The word is LOVE, John, not HATE. God LOVES us and commands that we love Him. Among all of the amazing things said in this post, this whole incredible discussion, I just wanted that to be said.