Recent discussions have emerged questioning traditional interpretations of the Bible in relation to LGBTQ+ inclusion. One particularly debated point revolves around the narrative of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:5-13. Some interpretations suggest this passage reveals Jesus affirming same-sex relationships, specifically referencing billboards with messages like “Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Would Jesus Discriminate?”. This article delves into the claims made by these interpretations, scrutinizing their validity and exploring the broader context of biblical teachings on sexuality.
The Claim: Matthew 8:5-13 as Affirmation of a “Gay Couple”
The assertion that Jesus Heals Same Sex Partners is often linked to a specific reading of Matthew 8:5-13. This interpretation, popularized through billboards and online discussions, posits that the centurion’s “servant” (pais in Greek) was actually his same-sex partner. Proponents of this view argue that Jesus, by healing this “servant,” implicitly affirmed a homosexual relationship. This interpretation is not new, having been discussed in theological circles for some time, notably explored in a 2004 Journal of Biblical Literature article by Theodore Jennings and Tat-Siong Liew.
Understanding the “Pais” and the Jennings & Liew Interpretation
Jennings and Liew’s article, “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13,” suggests that the traditional translation of pais as “servant” is a mistranslation. They argue that in the context of Roman military culture, pais could refer to a young boy in a pederastic relationship with an older man. Therefore, they contend that the centurion’s pais was not merely a servant but a young, male sex slave, his “boy-love.” They further suggest that Jesus’ commendation of the centurion’s faith implies an affirmation of this relationship, stating, “The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s pederastic relationship with his pai/j, we contend, may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her Gospel.”
This interpretation, while academically explored, is far from mainstream biblical scholarship and faces significant criticisms.
Problems with Interpreting Matthew 8 as Jesus Affirming Same-Sex Relationships
Several critical issues arise when attempting to use Matthew 8:5-13 to argue that jesus heals same sex partners and affirms homosexual relationships:
Contradiction with Jesus’ Explicit Teachings
Firstly, this interpretation clashes sharply with Jesus’ clear teachings on sexual morality. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), a cornerstone of Jesus’ ethical teachings, he unequivocally condemns sexual immorality (Matthew 5:28) and upholds the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman (Matthew 5:32). To suggest Jesus would then condone a forced, exploitative relationship like pederasty, or by extension, endorse all same-sex relationships based on this single, contested interpretation, presents a profound inconsistency in his moral framework. It would mean Jesus contradicting both the Old Testament and his own explicit teachings.
Lack of Scholarly Support and Debunking
Secondly, the Jennings and Liew interpretation is not widely accepted within biblical scholarship. It’s considered an obscure and fringe reading of the text. Leading biblical commentaries, such as R.T. France’s commentary on Matthew, do not even address this interpretation, highlighting its lack of mainstream recognition. Furthermore, this specific reading has been directly challenged and debunked within the same Journal of Biblical Literature on historical grounds. Scholarship has refuted the historical accuracy of the claims made about the prevalence and social acceptance of pederasty in the Roman military context in the way Jennings and Liew describe. This lack of scholarly consensus significantly weakens the argument that Matthew 8:5-13 demonstrates Jesus’ affirmation of same-sex partnerships.
Ethical Implications of the Pederasty Interpretation
Thirdly, even if one were to accept the Jennings and Liew interpretation of pais as “boy-love,” the implications are deeply problematic. Are those promoting the billboard message truly suggesting Jesus affirmed forced sexual predation of young boys by older men? It is highly unlikely that this is the intended message, yet this is the direct consequence of the interpretation they are implicitly endorsing to argue that jesus heals same sex partners in a positive light. This highlights the absurdity of relying on such a contested and ethically fraught interpretation to support a modern understanding of same-sex relationships.
Conclusion: A Baseless Claim
In conclusion, the claim that Jesus heals same sex partners based on Matthew 8:5-13 and thereby affirms homosexual relationships rests on a highly contested and ultimately baseless interpretation. This reading relies on a fringe scholarly argument about the word pais that is not supported by mainstream biblical scholarship and contradicts Jesus’ clear teachings on sexual morality. Furthermore, even if this interpretation were accepted, it leads to ethically problematic conclusions. It is crucial to approach biblical texts with rigorous scholarship and contextual understanding, rather than adopting interpretations that lack robust support and serve to promote pre-conceived notions. The message promoted by billboards suggesting Jesus affirmed a “gay couple” in Matthew 8:5-13 is, therefore, misleading and represents a significant misreading of scripture.
