Commentary on Matthew 8:5-13. Jesus and Homosexuality

Prelude: Both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 tell of the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. I've written two commentaries on this section of scripture reproduced in both Matthew and Luke, as Jesus' actions touch on two of our hot-bed political and social issues, (homosexuality and institutional violence). Sadly, because of our limited understanding of both Jesus' Jewish culture and the Roman culture at large, we miss most of what Jesus' audience would have clearly seen.

Also as a personal note, taking on this passage is of monumental importance to my faith. For me, there is no other demonstrative act of Jesus Christ that has solidifies his brilliance and shows the unique way in which he sees how the fulfilment of the ethnic, political, and moral dimensions of his messianic programme. Although this passage does not in any way attempt to prove Jesus' divinity, it is my opinion that there is no passage in the gospels that does a better job at demonstrating that Jesus is what God should look like. Drenched in Messianic mission, doubly dissimilar and similar to the expectations of what the people were looking for in a Messiah -- simultaneously breaking and fulfilling the expectations that were placed upon him, and overflowing with a mercy that was deeply scandalous on multiple levels, there is perhaps no greater story from which Jesus emerges as a great philosopher, dynamic political leader, and transcendent character for both his time and ours.

To more fully dissect these passages, I have split the two themes into two different commentaries. This may be a grave mistake, but for the sake of space there seems to be little in terms of other options. It is imperative that the reader view the second commentary on Luke 7:1-10 as well, for to understand what is going on in this section of scripture, as both messages are explicitly linked and one cannot understand one without understanding both.

On multiple levels in this one story, Jesus paradoxically fulfills and redefines the political, military, cultural, ethical, and ethnic messianic expectations of his time. This particular commentary focuses on how this passage relates to morality and ethics and who, exactly, makes the cut into Jesus' kingdom; the second relates to how Jesus actions paradoxically fulfils the political dimensions of his messianic role, especially as they relate to institutional violence.

Jesus heals the Centurion's Servant

The plot line for the story of the healing of the centurion, found in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, is as follows:

A centurion came to Jesus because his servant had fallen sick and begs him to heal his pais (this term will be defined in a moment). Jesus sets out to go to the centurion’s home, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to come to his home. The centurion then compares his authority to simply speak and have other accomplish his will to Jesus in a way that places Jesus' authority as being even greater than his own. The centurion states that if Jesus would simply speak the word, his servant would be healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed and Jesus addresses the crowd.

What does homosexuality have to do with understanding Jesus' exchange with the Centurion's Servant?

The word that is used to describe the servant in Matthew is "pais" (mostly because it produces a nice play on words with the Greek word for paralysis). At the time, pais, a term of endearment, could mean one of five things:

• "son or boy;"
• a "special servant" who lorded over other servants and cared for his master's children
• a particular type of servant — one who was "his master’s male lover."
• an endearing term for the junior partner in a homosexual relationship
• an attractive young male

Luke, instead of "pais" uses the term "entimos doulos" which means "honored slave." A "entimos doulos" would be a common way of describing a slave of who had an especially close relationship with his master.
Looking at these two terms, we can exclude all but two potential definitions: either this was a slave that was given special treatment by his master (the head slave who managed a household taking care of his masters servants and children could be referred to as "pais" and "entimos doulos") or a slave who was in a romantic or sexual relationship with his master.

Both the liberal and conservative voices often make demands on these verses that cannot be backed up by the data. I will attempt to unpack both arguments one at a time.

Most conservatives theologians stop here and argue that because the man is praised by Jesus the relationship must not be sexual in nature and choose instead the "head slave master" argument. Their argument, however, reveals less about Jesus than than their own preconceived viewpoints. Once one looks at Roman law and culture, their argument deflates.

Understanding Roman Culture and sexual ethics

Roman Culture and Paterfamilias

First and foremost, the argument deflates the audience for both the live action and the written stories would have assumed that the head of any Roman household would be likely to be treating his slave as sexual property.

In Roman culture, the eldest male of a household had complete authority over everything that belonged to him including wives, children, and slaves (who were all regarded as property). Through much of Roman history, a patriarch's power of his children, grandchildren, women, and slaves was all inclusive. Until late in the Roman Empire, patriarchs even had the right to main or kill their slaves on a whim, and even after laws to protect slaves were enacted, they were largely ignored. At no point in Roman history, were laws enacted to prevent the rape, sodomy, or sexual exploitation of a patriarch's human property; such actions were always within the legal authority of a family's patriarch.

Centurions and Sexuality

Again both Jesus' audience and later the early Roman and Jewish audience to whom the gospels were first received, would have known far more than we do about what it meant to be a centurion in the Roman army.

The current debate over whether homosexuals serving in the United States Army is a historical irregularity and should strike any historian as a rather humorous departure from historically normative beliefs on the topic. In the ancient world, homosexual armies were the modus operandi. The elite fighting forces of the Greeks, Romans, Spartans, Cretans, and Boeoitians, were all based upon homosexual relations. Rome continued this tradition and military homosexuality was encouraged as a means to improve troop morale, bravery, and overall fighting.

In what appears to be 13 B.C. (but could be a year or two in either direction), Augustus banned certain ranks of soldiers, including centurions, from marrying to further promote homosexual armies. This ban lasted until 197 A.D, so during the years that Jesus lived and the gospel writers wrote, a centurion was generally childless, single, and engaging in military homosexuality.

Furthermore, a centurion did not have the rights to have regular forms of slaves while he was away at war, save one exception: a soldier did have the right to bring a chosen, trusted, physically fit male slave with them as long as they had a plan to free him so that he could join the Roman army (only free men could serve in the Roman army). This would allow the centurion to have sexual release while away at war, for the slave to train in the art of war with a more senior soldier, and -- most importantly to the Roman generals -- for a bond to form that could not be broken.

This bond was the overarching goal of encouraging homosexual relations in the military. 400 years before Christ, the Roman had begun advocating that their armies be composed of purely homosexual males. One such battalion, the 300 members of the Sacred Band of Thebes, was lauded by the military captain Pelopidas (via the historian Plutrach) as being “a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another.” and a monument was built in their honor.

The preference for homosexual armies was so strong that it is, in fact, the very reason we celebrate Valentines Day. Sometime during the reign of Claudius II (267 - 270) a draft was issued and thus marriage was outlawed for all young men, and a certain priest, named Valentine, refused to comply and continued marring young couples. He was executed and we now celebrate Valentines Day to commemorate both his martyrdom and his commitment to love and marriage.

This, of course, negates the one of the last two potential definitions for how the gospels describe their relationship. Knowing that a centurion was forbidden to marry, was not allowed to have children or regular slaves, and was encouraged to have a special slave as a homosexual lover give us great clarity as to their relationship.

Liberals tend to get off the train here. They often uses this passage to declare that Jesus condones homosexuality because he heals this man and compliments his faith, but like the conservatives, their viewpoint is built on almost no data. Again, their argument reveals less about Jesus than than their own viewpoints; this exchange may be heavily based upon a homosexual union, but this passage does not deal with what we would call "a willing union." It does not deal with Homosexuality, but rather underage, homosexual, sex slavery.

Roman Culture and Pederasty

A few more pieces of information will give one pause as simply declaring "homosexual" as the best descriptor for the centurion and pais' relationship. In the Roman world, age diverse homosexual relations were considered a mark of social status for both the younger and older lovers within the Roman world. Many politicians and other affluent and influential Romans often kept young slave boys as lovers. Much romantic poetry written by older men to children as young as five last to this day from the Roman world around Jesus' time.

Below is an image of a Roman coin celebrating this sort of relationship with a younger pais. Yes, you heard that right, pederasty was so common in Roman culture, they literally put it on the money.



In his "Symposium" (written around 385 B.C.), Plato argues that a pais is made "wise and virtuous" and "morally pure" by the mentoring that occurs within a homosexual relationship. In the same way, the older member was seen as having increased social status for being a mentor. Because of the military duties, a pais would pass to a centurion at a later date, usually the age of 13, whereas the centurion would be in his 20's or 30's. Also those who wish to make this healing a definitive matter about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships would be wise to remember that despite the cultural honor, it cannot be missed that the junior member in a pederastic relationship did not have a voice in the matter. The relationship between the centurion and the pais, although being homosexual in nature, was not like modern homosexuality where two adults enter into a relationship of their own free will. It cannot be forgotten: the pais -- usually a child slave -- would not have had a choice in the matter.

Interlude: What does the bible actually say about homosexuality?

One cannot argue that the bible do not makes some very strong prohibitions against homosexuality in both the Old and New Testament, however ancient homosexuality and modern homosexuality are exceptionally dissimilar (and the bible never actually uses the word homosexuality as it -- neither the concept nor the practice -- had truly culturally occurred in the form we have today until the 1800's). Those who wish to have the bible make a clear statement about modern homosexuality are simply asking the bible to exist in a time other than it's own. It simply does not address the issue, as the passages that are often cited as having to do with homosexuality, are dealing with a substantially different concept.

What's the difference?

1. In the Old Testament and for nearly everyone but the military class in the New, just about everyone was married by the age of sexual maturity. For someone to become a homosexual was to turn their back on a wife and probably children (Women did not have control of their sexual choices -- many choices, really -- at the time, so a woman being a homosexual was considered with utmost shock -- breaking of two societal norms). Ancient Homosexuality cannot be separated from either the context of an affair or a divorce. Furthermore, in the ancient world, women had no societal value without their virginity intact, so to become a homosexual was to abandoning one's children and wife to a life of poverty and probably prostitution.

2. Procreation was considered a cultural, national, and religious obligation (and obviously homosexuals do not do those things).

3. Most importantly, being penetrated was culturally seen as a sign of weakness -- a lowering of men to the status of women. For one man to have sex with another man was to shame him and express dominance over him and the man who was being penetrated was often not given a choice in the matter. This is why homosexuality is never spoken of outside orgies throughout the scriptures. The story of Sodom expresses this definition, most important of what "homosexuality" was to the ancient world very succinctly: a group event, defined around shaming the penetrated one(s), usually with the penetrated one as being an unwilling participant (or someone willing, for whatever reason, to consent to the humiliation). 

Most of this context is very different now, although all of these ancient ways of viewing homosexuality have been left strangely undisturbed in our culture, as evidenced by what's now called "prison rape." When the bible speaks about homosexuality, it is this context that we must examine the verses that deal with homosexuality. Those looking for the bible to address modern, committed homosexual relationship are simply looking beyond the bible's historical consciousness; the question of right or wrong is simply unresolved.

What does Matthew 8:5-13 then mean?

So, thus, we return to the plot arc. The story as, we now understand it, has a Roman warrior beg (which was quite a humbling posture and odd cultural crossover, which is covered in detail in my second commentary on Luke 7:1-10) Jesus to heal his under-age sex slave with whom he has a romantic relationship. Marveling at the warrior’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed and Jesus addresses the crowd.

It is, both, what Jesus says and what he does not say that give the story it's meaning and which truly set Jesus apart as wholly original messiah, dramatically different than the many other men who claimed the title.

How Jesus does and doesn't respond to the Centurion

There is a church in America that pickets large events with signs that say "God Hates Fags."
Jesus leaves his sign at home.

Several famous preachers in the last few decades have decried AIDS (among many other things) as God's curse on the homosexual community.
Jesus offers no "of course, you deserve to be sick; you are in an immoral relationship," sermonizing.

There is a verse in the old testament that declares that sodomites must be put to death.
Jesus doesn't quote it.

Instead Jesus enacts a living parable, a demonstrative act, as he responds:

"I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This statement is nearly identical to what Jesus says concerning drunkards, tax collectors, and prostitutes: namely, that they will enter into God's embrace before the devout.

Jesus interaction with the centurion gives us insight that is far more valuable than simply what our position should be on homosexuality, (especially important for those of us who do not struggle with homosexuality or homophobia.)

Again if Jesus' healing gives us a position on the morality of the Centurion's act (which I do't think it does), it can only be on underage homosexual sex slavery -- which is an ethical question thankfully no longer raised in our modern world. And even on that topic, Jesus informs us less about a position than a response to it. Healing someone's ailments does not in any way condemn or condone their behavior, but it does say a great deal about Jesus message and programme. Jesus clearly states through his actions that reconciliation for lost sheep of Israel (this time expanded to include far more than Israelites -- but, now, also her very enemies -- for more on this see the other commentary on Luke 7:1-10) is more important than moral condemnation or indignation.

Jesus could not have healed this child, if he had worried about sermonizing on the rightness or wrongness of his master, but the scandal was not Jesus healing the child but rather declaring that it was the master for whom Jesus had come. The living parable states clearly: God's generosity knows no bounds: it is a scandalous mercy. It is precisely the moral failures of Jesus' day, the mortal enemies of God, the unrepentant, dirty, shameful sinner for whom there is room at Jesus' table -- and not just any seat, but the one's for whom the party is being thrown for in the first place!