I personally believe gay “Christian” apologetics will be something Bible-believing Christians will need to prepare themselves to contend with. The issue of homosexuality is becoming increasingly heated in our society over the last few years and it will only get hotter in the years to come. The one thing currently going in favor for Christians, however, is that the revisionist arguments put forth by gay “Christians” in an attempt to twist the Bible to allow a homosexual lifestyle are not too sophisticated.
Their arguments are not built upon any meaningful exegesis of the biblical text, but around the re-defining of certain original language words, and then re-inserting them back into the narrative or doctrinal passage in order to make the text teach something utterly foreign to what the original writer intended. This “apologetic” allows the re-interpreter to infer certain points in the passage under scrutiny and draw conclusions that may never had been apart of what the original writer of Scripture meant to convey.
For example, one reference is from Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 where a centurion comes to Jesus and asks for Him to heal his servant. Luke’s gospel records that this was a servant dear to the centurion. In describing the servant of the centurion, Matthew employs the unique word pais. From these two bits of information, gay apologist conclude that this was a centurion and his homosexual partner in view here, because a) the servant is dear to the centurion’s heart, and b) the word pais is used to describe the servant, and it is a special word of endearment.
Much of their argument hinges on the use of pais to describe the servant. What are we to make of that?
It is true that pais is an unusual word to describe a servant. Normally, other words like doulos are often used. But, are we to conclude the use of pais means a homosexual partner is being described in the Gospel narrative?
Most commentators understand this word to be in reference to a child-servant or a servant who is younger than an adult. In fact, the word “child” is the main definition given in the standard language dictionaries for pais. Additionally, Luke uses pais to describe Israel as God’s servant in Luke 1:54 and David being the Lord’s servant in Luke 1:69. Surely our homosexual apologists wouldn’t conclude there was a homosexual relationship between the Lord and Israel or David? But nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to gay arguments of the absurd.
One of the ways gay “revisionists” will build their case is to cite unrelated, irrelevant ancient language sources as to why such-and-such a word should be understood according to their homoerotic twist.
For example, they will claim that pais is a synonym for the word eromenos, a word that is found in extra-biblical sources like Plato’s Symposium. The word, it is claimed, has the meaning of “the boy you love,” and denotes a homosexual relationship, and would imply a homoerotic relationship between the centurion and his slave-boy.
No serious biblical lexicon or language dictionary ever makes this connection. It doesn’t matter how Plato may have used a word in Greece some 350 years before Christ’s ministry in Israel. What matters is how the NT writers used the word and what “they” meant by it’s use.
Additionally, pais is used consistently throughout the NT as a description of a child, a young person either boy or girl, and a servant. It’s ridiculous to think it also has the meaning of “sexual slave lover.” There are a number of passages where pais is used and there is no possible way it could mean a “sexual slave lover” in any of them: Matthew 2:16, 12:18, 14:2, 17:18, 21:16; Luke 1:54, 69, 7:7, 8:51, 54, 9:42; John 4:51; and Acts 3:13, to name just a handful.
Gay revisionist will further attempt to argue that the presence of the Roman centurion asking Jesus to heal his pais implies it is a homoerotic relationship because everyone knows centurions had servants that merely served the purposes of fulfilling their sexual appetites. But such a response assumes this behavior was true for ALL centurions.
However, more damning for the gay revisionist’s claim that Jesus healed a centurion’s homosexual lover is the consistent use of pais as child or young person throughout the NT. This would mean Jesus willingly approved of pederasty between an adult man and a child or young boy. Even if the servant was a mature man, say of the same age or just a year or two younger than the centurion, this still involves our Lord willingly approving a predatorial relationship between a centurion who was sexually abusing and taking advantage of his servant.
So. The reality of this narrative is much more pure in its simplicity: A God-fearing Roman centurion had a son, or quite possibly an adopted son, that he implores Jesus to heal. There is nothing sexual about their relationship at all, but it is a man who respected and loved this young servant boy who had become beloved to him. It is hardly this slimy, homoerotic narrative that is presented by gay “Christian” apologists, and is purely the figment of an over active perverse imagination.