We will be showcasing excerpts from the book "Who Stole Jesus?" by Paul D. Little each month. This is an excerpt from Chapter 10, which debunks the false claim that Jesus "healed a gay man's lover" and "affirmed a gay relationship".
The "Gay-Affirming Jesus"
There's disturbing claims by the left surfacing in recent years that Jesus "affirmed" a homosexual relationship in the Bible; thereby meaning that homosexuality must not be a sin. I can tell you emphatically that this is a lie. Not just a lie, but a lie that is satanic in origin. In the last few years this lie has gained in popularity, and is spreading among the ungodly and wicked as a way of excusing their sin. Apostate churches have adopted this lie as well.
As if this isn’t bad enough, there’s a companion claim to this lie that boldly proclaims that “Jesus said people are born gay”. This is a boldfaced, Satan inspired lie as well. Jesus neither “affirmed a homosexual relationship” nor “said people were “born gay”. It’s deeply disturbing that people would even dare to slander our Lord and Savior this way. I can only imagine that Hell will be all the more torturous for those laying these claims at the feet of The Lord Jesus Christ.
Let's examine these spurious claims, starting with the “affirmation of a gay couple”. The left uses the following Scripture to argue their tenuous position:
Matthew 8:5-13
"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.
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.
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."
Liberals, atheists, homosexuals, and apostate “Christians” argue that because the word "pais" was used in the original Greek text that this passage supposedly shows that Jesus healed the lover of a gay man. Then they surmise that because He didn't tell this soldier to "Go, and sin no more.", as He did with the adulterous woman in John 8, that this means He not only "affirmed" a gay relationship, but that He didn't see it as a sin either.
Now, let's examine this claim in detail: First off, we have to go really, really far out into the weeds, and I mean -deeply lost with no hope of ever finding your way back- far into the weeds, to come up with the fantasically rare usage of the Greek word "pais" to mean “male sex slave”. It's there, but it’s very, very uncommon to say the least. Even in Jesus’s day, the usage of the word “pais” to mean a male sex slave was archaic and almost never used.
In fact, the Greek word "pais" is used many times throughout the New Testament, with the most widely used and accepted definition of “pais” being “a child; son or daughter; an infant”. It’s also used in the Bible to mean children, slave, infant, or special attending servants (like a King's manservant). All of these meanings are more common than the very rare definition that the left chooses in making their fallacious argument. The definition they attempt to apply is the least common usage of the word; making it very implausible that it’d be used in this context. Strong’s Concordance shows the word “pais” used twenty-six times in the Bible; including twice in the book of Acts to describe Jesus Himself. (47)
Now, here's where the rubber meets the road and it begins to gets very interesting; and I’d say frustrating for those who seek to use this passage to excuse their sin. You see, while the Greek word "pais" can very rarely (almost never) be used to mean a male lover--actually, always used in reference to a male sex slave rather than a consensual lover--, it can never, not ever, be used to describe an adult male lover or adult male sex slave. It always would refer to a child, as "pais" has no usage, in any of its definitions, that means an adult. Read that again. “Pais” can never mean an adult, whether we’re speaking of a child, a servant, or a male sex slave. A “pais” would always denote a child is being spoken of.
Thus, this would mean that if we remove the correctly applied definition of “pais” in this passage, which is servant, and apply the seldom used definition of a male sex slave to the account of the Roman Centurion, it wouldn’t be the account of a “gay man and his lover” at all. It’d be the account of a pedophile rapist and his male child victim that was being described. So, what these people are really arguing is not that Jesus "affirmed a gay relationship”, but that He affirmed a pedophile rapist/victim relationship. I don't think Jesus would have any part of that!
What does make sense is that the KJV Bible is entirely correct when it calls this person who the Roman Centurion is seeking help for a “pais”, using the second most common meaning of the word which is "servant". A Centurion in the Roman Army is a military officer who’s in command of at least one group of one hundred men (sometimes even more than one group of a hundred). A person of this rank would necessarily have many "servants" to help him in his duties.
Can you imagine the logistics of having to be responsible for one hundred, up to one thousand, soldiers in a day and age where you’d have none of the modern conveniences that we enjoy now? That would be very hard to do without a lot of help. That’s where these servants came in.
Often times, these servants were highly trusted individuals who became like part of the Centurion’s family. Most of the time, these servants were orphaned children who were taken in by the army and trained as attendants, living around and with those they served, until they were of age and could fight in the army themselves. Then, they would go into the army, much of the time as officers, as they were already highly trained and competent soldiers.
These servants were often the children of fallen soldiers themselves. The Roman army did not waste able-bodied men who could fight in battle as simple servants. So, they wouldn’t use adult males in these positions. Often, these servants would serve the Centurion from the time they were just a small child. These beloved servants would become like the Centurion’s own children. It would make sense that this Roman Centurion would seek help for a trusted attendant (servant) who was a mere child. Especially a child who was like part of his own family. In modern day terms...think Batman.
No seriously. Think Batman. In the Batman television shows, cartoons, and movies, Alfred, the butler and special attendant, was like a beloved family member to Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was not a male lover. He was a servant. The only difference between Alfred and the Roman Centurion’s servant is that Alfred wasn’t a child. But, nevertheless, you can see how someone could deeply care for a servant, without that relationship being sexual.
I often hear people say “There’s no gay agenda.” But if that’s true, what reason could they offer for their willful dishonesty on this subject? If they’re going to try to change the correctly used word “servant” in the Biblical story of the Roman Centurion, how can they explain not using the most common meaning of the word, “child; son or daughter”? Certainly, it would make sense for a Roman Centurion to seek help for his son or daughter?
And, if they aren’t going to use the most common meaning of the word, why then would they skip the second, third, fourth, fifth, most common meanings of the word to arrive at absolutely least meaning of the word?
A meaning that still wouldn’t say what they’re trying to force it to say when applied to the passage?
If there’s no “gay agenda” then why make up a fallacious argument while trying to insert homosexuality where it never existed?
In a nutshell, this leftist theory of Jesus “affirming a gay relationship” in the Bible has been completely blown out of the water. Not a shred of truth to it. Anyone claiming otherwise is depending on the ignorance of the person they’re making the claim to, to keep them from knowing the difference.