Jesus, the Centurion, and His Lover
This article is only a portion of the full article. If you are already a premium subscriber please login. If you are not a premium subscriber, please subscribe for access to all of our content.

As early Christianity arose from Judaism, the social context demanded that early followers of Jesus rely heavily upon Hebrew scripture and faith tradition as they sought to understand and record their experiences of Jesus. Hebrew scripture and culture had roots in the same Mediterranean soil as their neighbors, but also the Hebrew people quite deliberately set themselves apart as God’s Chosen People. The Torah governed every detail of life from cradle to grave and served as an impenetrable wall around the Jews. One aspect of the Torah was a strict prohibition of homosexual activity among men. (The Hebrew scriptures contain no prohibition of lesbian activity.) Some scholars maintain that the Torah prohibition of male homosexual activity among the Jews was meant to protect the ritual purity of the Jews and cannot be seen as a condemnation of homosexuality in general. In other words, maybe the neighbors do those things, but we would never do them (Countryman, 1988).

The apostle Paul, whose letter to the Romans is often cited to condemn homosexual activity, could hardly be expected to have been comfortable with homosexuality. Paul began life as a Jew and a Pharisee, a strict observer of the Jewish Law. He inherited his tradition’s harsh attitude toward homosexual activity, probably without understanding the boundary-marking aspect of that condemnation. This attitude hardened in the three hundred years before Christ, as the armies of Alexander the Great and his successors occupied the Levant. Alexander brought in Greek ideas, including the glorification of the body and the idealization of physical beauty, both male and female. The former found expression in the gymnasium, where young men and boys exercised their bodies gymnos, or naked, as older men looked on, offering encouragement. Alexander also erected statues of their pagan gods that boldly displayed the virtues of the male body, often modeled after the beautiful, naked young men in the gymnasium. The revolt of the Maccabees against foreign occupation in 160 BCE began with the establishment of a gymnasium in Jerusalem and the erection of a Greek idol in the Jewish Temple (I Maccabees 1:14 and 54). For 300 years Jews had reason to connect the abhorrent idea of idolatry as practiced by the Greeks in the temples to their suspicious fascination with each other’s bodies at the gym.

The Romans, who of course absorbed much of Greek culture, arrived in Palestine as political and military occupiers in the first century BCE. The Jews increasingly set themselves apart from these foreigners. Philo of Alexandria, the great synthesizer of Greek and Jewish culture, came out against homosexuality and even reinterpreted the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to implicate homosexuality in the “sin of Sodom.” Previously, Sodom was thought to have been condemned for the sin of inhospitality. Interestingly, Jesus himself referred to Sodom only four times, three times making the point that on the day of judgment Sodom would receive a lighter judgment than the cities where he taught and was rejected, reinforcing the traditional idea that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and the rejection of God’s message and messengers (Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:23, Luke 10: 12). In the fourth instance, he merely cited Sodom as an example of total destruction (Luke 17:29).

Jewish culture and attitudes contributed to the context of the centurion and his servant, and so did Roman culture. The two cultures diametrically opposed each other with regard to homosexuality. Historian Eva Cantarella (1992) described the Roman attitude toward homosexuality in this way: “Relationships between men in Rome were simply an aspect and manifestation of the ethics of the city. In personal and family life, the Roman paterfamilias was an absolute master, with unlimited power over everything belonging to him, whether persons or things. In this situation, why on earth should he refrain from sodomizing his houseboys, whose domestic duties included the obligation to let him have his way with them?” Roman society recognized an almost unrestrained masculine power over subordinates.

The Roman legions carried their civilization’s culture with them, as by military might they reshaped the known world. Rome grew from a city-state on the Italian peninsula into an empire which encompassed the Mediterranean Sea. In myth, her legions were the free men of Rome, fighting to defend their homes. In reality, the common soldiers of the legions were often not Roman, but men from one part of the empire sent to serve in another. Roman centurions, like other officers, were always Roman citizens, though that did not mean that they were from Rome itself.

Centurions stood between the common soldiers and higher ranking officers. In general they commanded a “century” of eighty to a hundred soldiers, but could command as many as six to eight hundred. Like the common legion troops whom they commanded, though, centurions were not allowed to marry during their military service. Yet often, especially when sent to distant outposts of the Empire for years at a time, centurions established elaborate homes, such as the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10), who had numerous slaves and an extensive household.

THE GREEK WORDS used to tell the story of the centurion and his servant provide several linguistic reasons for arguing that the story involved a gay man. First, however, a clarification: the word “homosexuality” is not found here or anywhere in scripture. It was only in the late 1800’s that the Western scientific community began to name this sexual orientation using this word. Thus the very Greek-sounding word “homosexuality,”‘ coined in the late 19th century, cannot be found in the New Testament or anywhere else in an ancient Greek text. But this does not mean that we cannot spot what we would call gay relationships in other historical periods and documents, including in Judeo-Christian scripture, very possibly in the above passage.

The Greek word translated “appealing” in the passage is parakaloon. Only a few verses later, the translators rendered the same Greek word “beg” (Matthew 8:34). They also translated the same word “beg” in three more uses by Matthew (14:36, 18:29, and 18:32). The translators may have doubted that a Roman centurion would beg from an itinerant Jewish preacher like Jesus. But suppose the relationship of this centurion and his servant was not superficial. If this particular centurion were gay and in love with his servant, begging is what he would do, if his beloved suffered dreadfully and by begging he could bring about relief for that suffering.

The translators preserved the differences between two other Greek words, which could easily have been confused. One of these words is doulos. This word, translated “slave,” occurs only in verse 9 of the passage. Doulos was the ordinary word used to indicate a slave. It referred to a slave of any age or any sort. A doulos could have been the highly trusted and highly educated slave who directed a large enterprise owned by some rich citizen, such as a huge estate, a fleet of trading vessels, or a factory producing great quantities of pottery. At the same time, doulos referred to the most menial worker slave in any of those same enterprises.

The word translated “servant” is the Greek word pais, which had a variety of meanings. It could mean “boy.”‘ Pais occurred here only when the centurion himself described his relationship to the sick person. Pais appeared simply as the word “servant” rarely in the New Testament: here, in Luke 7 (a parallel account of Matthew 8), and in Galatians 4. Pais occurs some twenty other places in the New Testament, usually translated either as “boy” or as a very particular form of “servant.” Apart from Luke 7 and Matthew 8, pais was translated “servant” nine times, with five of those uses being references to Jesus himself. Twice the word referred to David, and once to Israel. In the reference in Galatians, Paul used the word to refer to Hagar and there recalled specifically that she was the mother of Ishmael. Pais appeared at times to denote a complicated relationship of unusual intimacy in the New Testament. At various times it referred to an adult servant, a child, Jesus, David, Israel, and Hagar.

The age of this particular pais remains undetermined. The term doulos, used almost exclusively about this figure in Luke’s account of the episode, does not indicate age. Further, the use of pais in reference to the fully adult Jesus, David, and Israel, and the reference to Hagar as a mother indicate that pais cannot be limited to a term for a child or servant. The term was used in a manner similar to the historic use of “boy” in referring to an adult considered socially inferior. Fully adult black males were commonly called “boy” in the southern United States or South Africa well into living memory.

Outside the New Testament, the use of pais was further complicated, as illustrated by these words from historian K. J. Dover (1989): “The junior partner in homosexual eros is called pais (or, of course, paidika) even when he had reached adult height and hair has begun to grow on his face, so that he might more appropriately be called neaniskos, meirakion, or ephebos.” Linguistically, the meaning of pais cannot be limited to “servant,” but the possible meanings must also include a sexual partner or “boy” in the sense of social inferior.

Matthew could have included the story of the centurion and his pais simply to illustrate that Jesus reached out to “outsiders.” Jews of first-century Palestine would have considered the centurion a detestable foreigner, regardless of his relationship with the pais. But the contextual and linguistic factors present the possibility of an intimate physical and emotional relationship between this Roman soldier and his “servant.” Did Jesus extend his compassion to one even further beyond the bounds of acceptability than a Roman centurion; namely, to a Roman centurion who engaged in sexual activity with another man? That level of openness to “the other” on the part of Jesus would certainly have challenged first-century Palestinian Jews to rethink their prejudices—as it should challenge some people to do so today.

Now consider the story itself. The story came from the “Q” material (for Quelle, German for “source”) found in both Matthew and Luke, but not Mark. Scholarly speculation has long maintained another source for this material, to which both Matthew and Luke had access, but which has not survived, or which was totally subsumed in these two Gospels. The account of the centurion in Matthew and Luke is unusual for Q material, which usually took the form of short, didactic sayings. In this story, the Q source recorded an encounter between Jesus and a most unusual Roman centurion. The appearance of the story in both Matthew and Luke indicates that two different early Christian writers and two different early Christian communities, drawing upon a third source, acknowledged and remembered this encounter.

Matthew’s account of the centurion and his pais appeared above. The story agrees with Luke’s version on at least seven points (Luke 7:1-10). Both stories recalled: 1) Jesus entering Capernaum from travels in Galilee; 2) the existence of a Roman centurion in Capernaum; 3) Jesus confronted with a request to heal the centurion’s seriously ill pais; 4) Jesus offering to enter the house of the centurion to heal the pais; 5) Jesus being prevented from entering the house at the centurion’s request; 6) Jesus commending the faith of the centurion; and 7) the remote healing of the pais.

In Luke, it was elders of the Jewish synagogue in Capernaum who asked Jesus to cure the centurion’s servant, but in Matthew’s account, it was the centurion himself. Luke presented the pais as on his deathbed, so the centurion did not leave him. In Matthew, the pais was “suffering dreadfully,” but not dying, so the centurion left the pais’ bedside to come to Jesus. Jesus showed absolutely no hesitation about going to cure the sick pais. In Luke’s account, Jesus heard the virtues of the centurion extolled by others. In Matthew’s account, Jesus saw the centurion in person and agreed to his request. Quite possibly, what Jesus saw was the centurion’s love for his pais and the centurion’s pain at the suffering of the sick man. Without hesitation, Jesus agreed to heal the pais. But the centurion protested that he was not worthy to have Jesus enter his home. Those words may reflect the centurion’s own understanding of Jewish attitudes. Unlike the story found in Luke, Matthew indicated no preexisting relationship of the centurion with the Jewish community of Capernaum. (In Luke’s account, this centurion had built the local synagogue and was said to love the Jewish people.) The centurion knew enough about Jewish custom to understand that pious Jews did not enter Gentile homes. He was a Roman soldier, a man who shed blood for a living, and a leader of the occupying army, all of which should have kept Jesus far away from him and from his dwelling place as well. The centurion and the crowd were undoubtedly shocked that Jesus agreed to go to the officer’s home.

In Matthew 8:9, the centurion then explained his faith: “For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes, and to my slave (doulos), ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” The centurion displayed his power over soldiers and slaves who did his bidding; then he put aside his earthly power and he submitted himself to Jesus. He had heard of Jesus’ life-giving authority; maybe he knew of the healing of the leper Matthew presented in the four verses preceding this story. The centurion humbled himself to “beg” Jesus on behalf of his pais.

In both Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the story, Jesus acknowledges the centurion’s extraordinary faith with the greatest compliment recorded anywhere in the Gospels. Jesus accedes to both the request to heal the pais and the request not to enter the centurion’s house. The last words of both accounts report that the pais was healed and that he was restored to the centurion, whatever their relationship might have been.

THIS ACCOUNT of the relationship between the centurion and his pais is not unassailable, but the contextual, linguistic, and narrative evidence are all very suggestive. An unmarried, adult male in a responsible position, living in the homosocial environment among the Roman legions who refers to a slave as “my pais” and then demonstrates extraordinary devotion to him, crossing every social boundary to beg for the help of an itinerant Jewish preacher—it’s so improbable as to have a ring of authenticity about it.

What are the implications of this interpretation of the story of the centurion and the servant for the lives of Christians today? Christians by definition ponder the words and actions of Jesus. For all of the statements over the centuries justifying the Christian condemnation of homosexuality, no one has ever quoted Jesus himself making such a pronouncement, because he never did. Instead, in his one encounter with what may well have been a homosexual man, Jesus offered no harsh judgment but instead went to unusual lengths to heal the man’s sick companion.

Luke echoed the Gospel story of the centurion in Acts of the Apostles (10:1–11:18), where the centurion Cornelius was accepted into the Christian community by Peter upon the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. The point could hardly be missed: Christ and the Holy Spirit opened the doors of the Christian community to those outside the community of Israel—in Luke and Matthew to a gay man and his lover. Historically, homosexuality has not been condemned by the Christian community because Jesus condemned it, but because the community inherited a condemnation of homosexuality from a worldview that did not understand the incidence, provenance, or nature of any form of human sexual attraction. The Gospel of Jesus should mean that the condemnation of anyone or of their relationships cannot be based on prejudice.

One final irony remains. In the Roman Catholic Communion rite, the last words said by every communicant before receiving Holy Communion are: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” Those words may sound familiar now. They paraphrase the centurion’s words as recorded in Matthew. How surprised many of those who condemn homosexuals in Christ’s name would be if they realized that every time they take Holy Communion, the words on their lips are those of a gay man.

Note: All biblical quotations are taken from the Revised New American Bible (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, 1986).

References

Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Yale Univ. Press, 1992.

Countryman, L. William. Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today. Fortress Press, 1988.

Dover, K. J. Greek Homosexuality. Harvard Univ. Press, 1989.

Jack Clark Robinson is a Franciscan living in California.