Was the Centurian's "Servant" Really a Same-Sex Partner

[Paul DeBaufer]

Trigger Warning This is going to be very unpopular, even here in the PT forum, but I have questions.

Yesterday I read this article. The author claims that the Greek word that gets translated to "servant", pais, in Matthew's version has a long history in Greek literature as meaning a same-sex partner, unlike doulos which Luke employs which means servant.

Not having had Greek, so unable to assess the proffered opinion, I thought I'd toss it out here and see what those more knowledgeable of the original languages think of the viability of this argument.

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm clearly not an expert but the word is used a number of times in scripture including at least one reference to Christ (Acts4:30). It may have also been used to describe a same sex partner in larger society. (I don't know, it is beyond my meager Greek skills to answer that question) That being said the question is how did the early church use the word and based on it's use in the NT it pretty clearly did not mean same sex partner.

Pretty much a case of over interpreting the text. Even if the man was a same sex partner to the centurion it would not even come close to making the case that Jesus was a proponent of same sex relationships. Healing him is simply the loving way Jesus operated toward all. (For which we should ALL be grateful)

[Doug Ward]

Trigger Warning This is going to be very unpopular, even here in the PT forum, but I have questions.

Yesterday I read this article. The author claims that the Greek word that gets translated to "servant", pais, in Matthew's version has a long history in Greek literature as meaning a same-sex partner, unlike doulos which Luke employs which means servant.

Not having had Greek, so unable to assess the proffered opinion, I thought I'd toss it out here and see what those more knowledgeable of the original languages think of the viability of this argument.

Paul, it sounds like someone wanting to transfer meaning back onto the text. This is a novel idea from everything I know, and my Greek tools. The plain meaning is "child", but it was also used to denote a servant, or someone in a lower class who was a child. The plain, simple meaning, and near unanimous usage would be child or servant. In Luke, the word is clearly slave. many commentators will remark that the reason we have slave or servant in matthew, is to make it match with Luke. The question is whether the dead child in matthew is the centurion's son, since doulos was available and not used.

[Billy Cox]

Trigger Warning This is going to be very unpopular, even here in the PT forum, but I have questions.

Yesterday I read this article. The author claims that the Greek word that gets translated to "servant", pais, in Matthew's version has a long history in Greek literature as meaning a same-sex partner, unlike doulos which Luke employs which means servant.

Not having had Greek, so unable to assess the proffered opinion, I thought I'd toss it out here and see what those more knowledgeable of the original languages think of the viability of this argument.

I don't know that it would be a same-sex partner per se, but it was not unusual for Roman slave owners to have 'carnal knowledge' of slaves of both genders. The fact that Jesus healed the centurion's servant would have been quite politically incorrect in Jewish circles, and this would have added another layer of taboo.

[James Diggs]

Jesus healed the centurion's servant would have been quite politically incorrect in Jewish circles, and this would have added another layer of taboo.

I agree, it was taboo enough for us to at least know that Jesus was willing to cross such culturally taboo lines to bring healing to people.

I am not a scholar and can't speak to the language here, but it feels like what the article is suggesting is a reach. As such I am not sure why some would feel the need because I think the spirit of the text clearly is enough for us to know that Jesus was not afraid to cross taboo cultural boundaries to bring healing. This does not mean Jesus would have granted "approval" of the activity of what Roman soldiers did in the name of Rome, so even if someone did reach to read what the article suggests doesn't mean that Jesus was somehow blessing homosexuality either- even the article pointed out if it was a same sex relationship it wasn't the kind even most homosexuals would "approve" of.

I guess I just don't see the point, other than the fact that for us in our culture we might not recognize the taboo in the text as it is and we might be able to say that to the people who witnessed such a healing they might have felt about it like some people today would if Jesus healed a same sex partner/servant. But the article isn't saying it is LIKE that, but it was that- I would need more evidence and to hear from other scholars digging into it more to be convinced.

[Benjamin Burch]

I simply don't have the knowledge to know one way or another. However, this appears to me to be another instance of people just trying way too hard.

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes, Ben, they do seem to be looking for it everywhere (sort of like the "demon behind every bush" folks). Ending this thread would coordinate nicely with the one suggesting we talk about something other than homosexuality for awhile (gossip), after those two huge threads re Chick-Fil-A & the subsequent "kiss-in."

[James Diggs]

Yes, Ben, they do seem to be looking for it everywhere (sort of like the "demon behind every bush" folks). Ending this thread would coordinate nicely with the one suggesting we talk about something other than homosexuality for awhile (gossip), after those two huge threads re Chick-Fil-A & the subsequent "kiss-in."

Well, I understand the concern about the timing- I am worn out too from the previous discussion. But, it looks like there is a lot of consensus here, so I hate to delete the thread that actually reflected agreement about something on the topic.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have been looking for the usage in Thucydides as the article suggests, but I can't find anything that supports the author's contention. Can't find anything that counters it either. However, in prison lingo a guys "kid" is his same-sex partner much as the relationship described in the article. It is by no means an equal partnership and is abusive, as the author of the article says was between Roman soldiers and their "pais". Even if Thucydides did use pais in the suggested manner does that mean that the author of Matthew would've used it similarly? Thucydides would've written in classical Greek whereas the author of Matthew would've written in Koine Greek, is there much of a difference?

That said, could our inclination (mine too) that this author, and those he cites, over interpreting be based on our bias?

I do like what Billy and James are saying about the Jewish taboo that Jesus violates, regardless of the healed person's relationship to the centurion. Today we would think that someone doing what Jesus did as approving of them and their lifestyle, here gentile oppressor.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes, Ben, they do seem to be looking for it everywhere (sort of like the "demon behind every bush" folks). Ending this thread would coordinate nicely with the one suggesting we talk about something other than homosexuality for awhile (gossip), after those two huge threads re Chick-Fil-A & the subsequent "kiss-in."

Well, I understand the concern about the timing- I am worn out too from the previous discussion. But, it looks like there is a lot of consensus here, so I hate to delete the thread that actually reflected agreement about something on the topic.

I specifically chose the Post-Traditional Theology forum for this thread precisely to avoid the kind of thing that all of the Chick-Fil-A threads seemed to degrade into so that honest questioning could take place.

[Craig Laughlin]

That said, could our inclination (mine too) that this author, and those he cites, over interpreting be based on our bias?

I think we always need to ask ourselves this question and two or three times when dealing with stuff that challenges our thinking. However my impression is that this author is looking for a sort of Greek proof text. When he says.

But pais does not mean "servant." It means "lover." In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship.

He has clearly side stepped a bunch of issues and now speaks with certainty which is intellectually dishonest. I don't doubt (and I don't know) his source so much as I'm not at all certain that the source can apply his information, which we don't have to examine, to the text in question. Language, especially ancient language, is just not as simple as that. It is not the case that this particular word or any other word for that matter, always means exactly one particular thing. - It simply doesn't work like that and his confidence that it does means he doesn't know what he is talking about.

My issue is more primal than my particular prejudices. The fact is we don't have any evidence to support his claim. When you put that together with how the word is used in other texts in the NT... well it seems pretty doubtful that the NT authors meant what he thinks they meant. Show us some Koine Greek (type of Greek the NT was written in) examples of the word being used that way and we can have a conversation. But given that word meaning is largely determined contextually that still would not be anything close to conclusive evidence, but we could at least talk about it in meaningful ways. At this point we really have nothing other than the idea itself to go on.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think we always need to ask ourselves this question and two or three times when dealing with stuff that challenges our thinking. However my impression is that this author is looking for a sort of Greek proof text. When he says.



He has clearly side stepped a bunch of issues and now speaks with certainty which is intellectually dishonest. I don't doubt (and I don't know) his source so much as I'm not at all certain that the source can apply his information, which we don't have to examine, to the text in question. Language, especially ancient language, is just not as simple as that. It is not the case that this particular word or any other word for that matter, always means exactly one particular thing. - It simply doesn't work like that and his confidence that is does means he doesn't know what he is talking about.

My issue would is more primal than my particular prejudices. The fact is we don't have any evidence to support his claim. When you put that together with how the word is used in other texts in the NT... well it seems pretty doubtful that the NT authors meant what he thinks they meant. Show us some Koine Greek (type of Greek the NT was written in) examples of the word being used that way and we can have a conversation. But given that word meaning is largely determined contextually that still would not be anything close to conclusive evidence, but we could at least talk about it in meaningful ways. At this point we really have nothing other than the idea itself to go on.

Good point. I am reminded of Tom Oord's The Nature of Love where he talks about his search for the biblical meaning of the words translated "Love". He said, if I remember correctly, that there really is no consistent definition, that the words are used differently giving rise to different meanings. So, I think you are right, we do need to look to context and how the author has used the word in other places, lacking that how his contemporaries have used it. Also, I'm not sure it is a fair to compare Thyucydides, a Greek in a Greek world speaking to Greeks, usage to the author of Matthew's usage, a Jew writing in a different form of Greek in a Roman world to a Jewish audience.

Now, personally, I like the concept that Jesus would heal a member of a same-sex relationship without worry about appearance. I'm just not convinced that this is a proper interpretation.

[Craig Laughlin]

Now, personally, I like the concept that Jesus would heal a member of a same-sex relationship without worry about appearance. I'm just not convinced that this is a proper interpretation.

Exactly. Not a doubt in my mind that Jesus would do that, may have even been what happened in this story. We just can't make the case from the language.

[Gina Stevenson]

Well, I understand the concern about the timing- I am worn out too from the previous discussion. But, it looks like there is a lot of consensus here, so I hate to delete the thread that actually reflected agreement about something on the topic.

To make that "they" clear, I was not talking about you guys talking about it (a note or two made me think y'all maybe did think that!), but about the one who would try to find it and write accordingly ... the article that started this thread.

Sorry that I was not clearer the first time.

Carry on, guys. I'm out of here!

[Billy Cox]

I guess I just don't see the point, other than the fact that for us in our culture we might not recognize the taboo in the text as it is and we might be able to say that to the people who witnessed such a healing they might have felt about it like some people today would if Jesus healed a same sex partner/servant. But the article isn't saying it is LIKE that, but it was that- I would need more evidence and to hear from other scholars digging into it more to be convinced.

Some interpreters would say that Jesus healed the centurion's "boy" without condoning whatever relationship the soldier likely had with the servant. Other interpreters would say that Jesus fully did not object to the likely relationship enough to refuse his request.

I think both groups of interpreters miss the point...which has an ecclesiological application; namely that Jesus healed anyone with faith enough to ask for it.

[John Kennedy]

Exactly. Not a doubt in my mind that Jesus would do that, may have even been what happened in this story. We just can't make the case from the language.

You are aware that if we have a criteria of having to 'make the case from the language', it's going to put a real hitch in a whole lotta' homletical git-alongs'. Many preachers will not rise up and call you blessed.

[Craig Laughlin]

You are aware that if we have a criteria of having to 'make the case from the language', it's going to put a real hitch in a whole lotta' homletical git-alongs'. Many preachers will not rise up and call you blessed.

Decided a long time ago I preferred truth over favor, then I discovered that Jesus felt the same way.

[Dale Cozby]

Was the Centurian's "Servant" Really a Same-Sex Partner ? We will never know because the Army had a don't ask don't tell policy in place until recently.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Was the Centurian's "Servant" Really a Same-Sex Partner ? We will never know because the Army had a don't ask don't tell policy in place until recently.

Good one Dale

[Cynthia Prentice]

It seems that there is a pretty good consensus in this thread. In addition to the points that have been made, I'd like to add that the author of the article is also completely disregarding 2nd Temple Jewish culture. In Luke 7 we read that a delegation of Jewish elders came to Jesus with the centurion's request. They described the centurion as worthy, a lover of the Jewish people and a builder of their synagogue. Their words about him give us the cultural context that is needed to definitively determine that the servant was simply a servant...a much loved servant, but certainly not a sexual partner. There was not a synagogue in the land that would have given a stamp of approval to a homosexual relationship. The prohibition of a male to male sexual relationship was so strong during this time period that if one was born a hermaphrodite (with ambiguous sexual characteristics), the hermaphrodite was always designated as a male, who was free to marry and have a sexual relationship with a female (yes, he could even be a priest), to prevent even the possibility of a male homosexual act. Within this culture it would have been impossible for Jewish elders to have described a pagan centurion who was having a sexual relationship with a male with the terminology that they used.

Those who use the centurion/servant story to show that Jesus sanctioned a homosexual relationship must first show that the Jewish elders who represented the centurion sanctioned the homosexual relationship...for there is no doubt the centurion had the Jewish synagogue leaders' approval. We are talking about the approval of pious Pharisees here... not the corrupt Sadducees associated with Herod's Temple. In other words...we have to look at the entire picture Matthew/Luke...not just the word pais.

Another example from the text of a god-fearing Centurion, is Cornelius.

edited to add: It would have been very acceptable for Jewish leaders to have asked a Jewish physician, on the Sabbath, to heal a Roman soldier. When asked to treat a soldier, doctors were exempt from the prohibition of working on the Sabbath because the soldier might retaliate and lives could be lost. *There were provisions for breaking almost all of the commandments, except, the commandments against fornication, murder, and the worship of other gods, if it meant saving someone from death. These leaders could have approached Jesus and asked for his help simply because the man was a Roman soldier. There was no reason to include all the information about the centurion's worthiness, his love for the Jewish nation, and his building a synagogue.

*one rabbinic principle is "Pikuach Nephesh" (pi-KOO-akh NEH-fesh), which is the preservation of life.4 The rabbis saw that Leviticus 19:16 says, "Do not stand by while your brother's blood is shed" - meaning if someone's life is in danger, you must intervene. Also, the Torah says that the law was given in order to bring life, (Ex. 30:15-16), so they concluded that all laws (except a few) should be set aside to save a human life. ~ En Gedi Resource "Thinking Biblically takes Both Hands" http://www.egrc.net/articles/directo...ctor_1106.html

[Dale Cozby]

Always like your posts Cynthia. Well thought out and clear. I wish I was that learned.

[Cynthia Prentice]

Always like your posts Cynthia. Well thought out and clear. I wish I was that learned.

Thanks Dale...I feel I need to respond to your kind words and say that my knowledge truly is limited. My quest to better understand all the question marks I had placed in the margins of my Bible, began in 2005. The biggest thing I have learned over these past seven years is to dig deep...really deep...and to dig deep beyond the normal commentaries. I'm not into Jewishness for the sake of Jewishness....but rather I have a very, very deep desire to understand Jesus' words and actions within their proper cultural context and what I have learned more than anything is that the wall of antisemitism was erected so quickly in the early church, that much of the cultural context was lost.

It was not until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and then made available for study, with the final volume being published only four years ago, that the information found in the Mishnah, which covers the oral teaching from 536 BCE to 70 CE, was finally validated as historically accurate for the 2nd Temple period. More than any other time in Christianity we have an emerging picture of the culture and conversations that Jesus moved within. Then, in the late 1980's, and for the first time in the history of Christianity, a group of Jewish scholars...who were not just scholars but men who were top in their field, sat down with Hebrew speaking Christians and began examining the synoptic gospels together forming the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. I've been blessed to have become acquainted with someone who came into this field of study twenty years ago, Dr. Lois Tverberg. Lois has served as an editor for the published material of some of the scholars from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research as well as having articles she herself authored included on their website, Jerusalem Perspective. Lois also created the En Gedi Resource Center and she has authored Listening to the language of the Bible, Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus and Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus. My quest started with her friend and colleague, Ray Vander Laan. I bless God for them and for the journey they are on to better understand the words of Jesus.

The thing that so exites me is not just the wealth of resources that are available for research but by learning what conversations were going on among the religious leadership and learning their teaching and communication techniques...learning about 2 Temple period hermeneutics...ie stringing pearls, rabbinic hinting (later called remez)...learning about contemporary rabbinic parables as interpretations of O.T. text, Hebrew idioms, parallelisms...etc...I may not know what I am going to find...but I know where to start digging. I feel so blessed to live right now...the resources available combined with the internet and the lightening fast computer programs for exploring the Hebrew and Greek text...I just want to say WOW...there has never been a time like this.

I always wanted to grow up and be an archaeologist...a treasure hunter...and I feel like my dream has come true.

Blessings friends,

Cynthia

For those who are interested in learning more about the Bible in its Hebraic context, Lois has a new post on her blog, Our Rabbi Jesus, with a short list of where to start. http://ourrabbijesus.com/2012/08/01/...ewish-context/ (I agree with her comment about the book Our Father Abraham...and RVL recommends just skipping the first 7 chapters.

Good First Reads about Jesus’ Jewish Context

AUGUST 1, 2012
Many ask me what the first books I’d recommend to read if you want to learn about the Bible in its Hebraic context. Below I’ve shared a short list of where to start.

One thing I always tell people is that before they start studying, they need to have a firm grasp of the biblical text and core Christian beliefs. There are many teachers out there who aren’t terribly balanced, especially on the internet. And the whole idea is to learn about Judaism, which by definition does not embrace Christ. It’s important to have some basic biblical and doctrinal background before you start, so that you can exercise discernment.

What I often see is that people who are disgruntled with their church will embrace every new thing they read. But often they start with an immature knowledge of Christianity, because they didn’t get much training in their faith growing up.

All that said, I’d highly recommend the following books and DVDs to begin the journey. Links are to Amazon pages if not on this site already.

1. Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson. (Eerdmans, 1989.)

This is a must-read introduction to this topic. Some of the early chapters are a little scholarly though, even though the information is excellent. Later on the book has some more practical insights. If you’ve started it and gotten slowed down, skip ahead to chapter 11, “Marriage and the Family Through Hebrew Eyes.” And don’t miss chapter 14, “A Life of Learning,” on the Jewish love of study. Then go back and read the rest of it.

~

2. The Gospel According to Moses: What My Jewish Friends Taught Me About Jesus by Athol Dickson.(Baker, 2003.)

This is another favorite first-read. Dickson is a conservative evangelical Christian, and he shares from his (sometimes awkward) experience of joining a Torah study at a Reform synagogue. Soon he finds insights that deepen his Bible reading and faith in Christ. Dickson is a novelist by trade, and a very warm, readable writer. My favorite chapter was “Yes And Yes,” on Hebraic thought.

~

3. Jesus the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young (Hendrickson, 1995.)

This is an excellent study of Jesus’ life and teachings in their Jewish context. Young is particularly good with the parables, having written his Ph.D. on the rabbinic parallels to Jesus’ words.

One idea: Use Jesus the Jewish Theologian as the background text for a weekly Bible study of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. I’ve done this more than once, and the discussion was very rich.

~

4. New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context by David Bivin (En-Gedi, 2005.)

Bivin shares many insights on Jesus’ first-century life and teachings. He looks at Jesus within the world he lived – how Jesus dressed and was educated, and how he taught as a rabbi and raised disciples. Then he addresses topics in Jesus’ ministry, like marriage, divorce, pacifism, poverty, the Law and the kingdom of God, and fits his words into the larger rabbinic conversation. (See this page for more details.)

~

My other two first recommendations are DVD series which include guides for group study:

5. The Faith Lessons Series, by Ray Vander Laan (Zondervan, 1998-2008.)

There are 12 DVD studies of the land and culture of the Bible. Many people have loved this curriculum, which takes viewers to Israel, Greece, Turkey and Egypt to highlight Jesus and the Bible stories in their Eastern, Jewish context. If you haven’t seen them, you should.

~

6. Behold the Man – a DVD teaching series by Dwight Pryor (Center for Judaic Christian Studies, 2008 – not on Amazon.)

Behold the Man is a twelve-session introductory study on the significance of Jesus’ Jewishness for Christians today. Another excellent way to discover our Hebrew Lord, the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

~

Obviously, if someone is looking for a place to begin I also recommend the three books I’ve written, because their intended audience is the Christian lay person who wants to encounter the Bible in its original setting. In a nutshell my books are:

Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus (Zondervan, 2012), about Jesus’ words and teachings in their Jewish context.

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus (Zondervan, 2009), about the traditions and culture of first-century Judaism that shaped Jesus’ world.

Listening to the Language of the Bible (En-Gedi, 2004), a devotional guide to Hebraic ideas in the Bible.

(For more on these titles, see my Books page.)

[Paul DeBaufer]

It seems that there is a pretty good consensus in this thread. In addition to the points that have been made, I'd like to add that the author of the article is also completely disregarding 2nd Temple Jewish culture. In Luke 7 we read that a delegation of Jewish elders came to Jesus with the centurion's request. They described the centurion as worthy, a lover of the Jewish people and a builder of their synagogue. Their words about him give us the cultural context that is needed to definitively determine that the servant was simply a servant...a much loved servant, but certainly not a sexual partner. There was not a synagogue in the land that would have given a stamp of approval to a homosexual relationship. The prohibition of a male to male sexual relationship was so strong during this time period that if one was born a hermaphrodite (with ambiguous sexual characteristics), the hermaphrodite was always designated as a male, who was free to marry and have a sexual relationship with a female (yes, he could even be a priest), to prevent even the possibility of a male homosexual act. Within this culture it would have been impossible for Jewish elders to have described a pagan centurion who was having a sexual relationship with a male with the terminology that they used.

Those who use the centurion/servant story to show that Jesus sanctioned a homosexual relationship must first show that the Jewish elders who represented the centurion sanctioned the homosexual relationship...for there is no doubt the centurion had the Jewish synagogue leaders' approval. We are talking about the approval of pious Pharisees here... not the corrupt Sadducees associated with Herod's Temple. In other words...we have to look at the entire picture Matthew/Luke...not just the word pais.

Another example from the text of a god-fearing Centurion, is Cornelius.

edited to add: It would have been very acceptable for Jewish leaders to have asked a Jewish physician, on the Sabbath, to heal a Roman soldier. When asked to treat a soldier, doctors were exempt from the prohibition of working on the Sabbath because the soldier might retaliate and lives could be lost. *There were provisions for breaking almost all of the commandments, except, the commandments against fornication, murder, and the worship of other gods, if it meant saving someone from death. These leaders could have approached Jesus and asked for his help simply because the man was a Roman soldier. There was no reason to include all the information about the centurion's worthiness, his love for the Jewish nation, and his building a synagogue.

*one rabbinic principle is "Pikuach Nephesh" (pi-KOO-akh NEH-fesh), which is the preservation of life.4 The rabbis saw that Leviticus 19:16 says, "Do not stand by while your brother's blood is shed" - meaning if someone's life is in danger, you must intervene. Also, the Torah says that the law was given in order to bring life, (Ex. 30:15-16), so they concluded that all laws (except a few) should be set aside to save a human life. ~ En Gedi Resource "Thinking Biblically takes Both Hands" http://www.egrc.net/articles/directo...ctor_1106.html

When I posted the OP I was hoping we'd hear from you. Thank you.

[Bob Carabbio]

Well - given the desperation that many in the "Church" have these days to prove that "Black" is actually "White" about many issues INCLUDING the concerted effort to make Homosexual physical relationships Biblically valid, and even theologically praiseworthy - I'd guess that this is just another attempt to "adjust" the interpretation of a passage so that it becomes a "Proof text" for the desired "Popular Media Correct" eisegesis.

What's interesting is the Jesus runs the "Woman of Caanan" (Mat 15:22) all around Robin Hood's barn before granting her petition for her daughter. While He IMMEDIATELY drops everything for the Centurion, and praises him as an outstanding example of how FAITH works -

But the exact relationship of the Centurion and the object of His concern obviously isn't part of the discussion, or the message that Jesus is presenting. This makes it an EXCELLENT ambivalent passage to be used in creative theology as folks desire.

I just had a similar discussion with a Catholic "True Believer" about the statement of Mary in Luke 1:34 which says literally "Since I KNOW NOT MAN". His argument was that Mary was OBVIOUSLY stating her VOW OF LIFELONG CELIBACY since she says RIGHT THERE that, she WILL NEVER have a sexual relationship with ANY man. Hard to argue with a mindset like that.

Magnificant theological mountains can be constructed by folks skilled in the art, who have only suppositional Molehills as raw material.

[Benjamin Burch]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

And Jesus said to the thread, "get up, and walk!"

[Jon Bemis]

IMO this article is a classic example of someone forcing meaning into Scripture that is almost certainly not there. It begins with the title of the article "When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner" (presented as though it were fact) and then goes on from there. The author's certainty does not bear up under serious scholarship (see Cynthia's post) although he does quote a Greek scholar. In the long run I think the author of this article does considerable damage to his position rather than helping it.

[James Diggs]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

And Jesus said to the thread, "get up, and walk!"

What is funny about it is every comment is preaching to the choir as there has been just about universal consensus here that the premise isn't supported by the text. There is not even a debate going on about this, yet the thread continues on.

[Steven Martinez]

Just a hypothesis here... perhaps the cultural significance of the relationship explains the difference of word choices. Luke's usage of slave would be consistent with his paradigm of a New Kingdom with upside down rules. The fact that a Roman man of honor would care about his slave at all would be a scandal in itself. As for Matthew, the choice for the word child might have reflected the close relationship between slave and master where the master adopts the slave as his own son. If the slave was Jewish than this adoption would easily have been seen by the Jewish community as a positive for the slave would essentially be a freeman with his debts forgiven. Obviously there are many theological messages that can be gleaned from these cultural relationships.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Just a hypothesis here... perhaps the cultural significance of the relationship explains the difference of word choices. Luke's usage of slave would be consistent with his paradigm of a New Kingdom with upside down rules. The fact that a Roman man of honor would care about his slave at all would be a scandal in itself. As for Matthew, the choice for the word child might have reflected the close relationship between slave and master where the master adopts the slave as his own son. If the slave was Jewish than this adoption would easily have been seen by the Jewish community as a positive for the slave would essentially be a freeman with his debts forgiven. Obviously there are many theological messages that can be gleaned from these cultural relationships.

Excellent, I really like these ideas. Subverts the social order and power structures.

[Greg Farra]

Reminds me of Ben-Hur.

[Michael Flowers]

Reminds me of Ben-Hur.

I had the exact same thought actually.

[Steven Burton]

Paul you should read his book he is highly educated. He is actually a conservative Jew who is gay. He gives some nice exegeticals in his book to support his position as well as some Jewish perspective on wording in the old testament. I have not read the book yet but have had quite a few discussion on it with my wife who has read the whole thing and was quite impressed. His site for if you want to get to know him more.

[Greg Farra]

Paul you should read his book he is highly educated. He is actually a conservative Jew who is gay. He gives some nice exegeticals in his book to support his position as well as some Jewish perspective on wording in the old testament. I have not read the book yet but have had quite a few discussion on it with my wife who has read the whole thing and was quite impressed. His site for if you want to get to know him more.

I'm not sure how conservative he is, given his bio:

'Dharma/Jewish/Faerie Spiritual Background. Jay dances at the intersections of Judaism, Buddhism, and earth-based spirituality. In 2008-09, he spent five months on silent meditation retreat in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, in America and Nepal, and has sat long retreats in that tradition for ten years. In the Jewish tradition, Jay has learned and taught Kabbalah since 1993, completed the Elat Chayyim Jewish Meditation Advanced Training program, spent two years at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies, and has been a practicing halachic Jew for three decades. Jay chose not to pursue rabbinic ordination and instead offers his teachings as a lay practitioner of Torah and Dharma'.

Maybe I don't know what makes a Jew conservative, but he has a pretty interesting mix of religions.

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not sure how conservative he is, given his bio:

'Dharma/Jewish/Faerie Spiritual Background. Jay dances at the intersections of Judaism, Buddhism, and earth-based spirituality. In 2008-09, he spent five months on silent meditation retreat in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, in America and Nepal, and has sat long retreats in that tradition for ten years. In the Jewish tradition, Jay has learned and taught Kabbalah since 1993, completed the Elat Chayyim Jewish Meditation Advanced Training program, spent two years at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies, and has been a practicing halachic Jew for three decades. Jay chose not to pursue rabbinic ordination and instead offers his teachings as a lay practitioner of Torah and Dharma'.

Maybe I don't know what makes a Jew conservative, but he has a pretty interesting mix of religions.

Conservative is essentially a denomintional identifier for modern Judaism - akin to hassidic, orthodox, or reformed. There is generally some theological position assumed, but less and less these days. NPR had an interview with an openly gay orthodox rabbi the other day.

[Greg Farra]

Seems a bit crazy, but that's just me!

[Steven Burton]

Conservative is essentially a denomintional identifier for modern Judaism - akin to hassidic, orthodox, or reformed. There is generally some theological position assumed, but less and less these days. NPR had an interview with an openly gay orthodox rabbi the other day.

Yup conservative is a branch of Judaism just like orthodox is.

[Cynthia Prentice]

Conservative is essentially a denomintional identifier for modern Judaism - akin to hassidic, orthodox, or reformed. There is generally some theological position assumed, but less and less these days. NPR had an interview with an openly gay orthodox rabbi the other day.

Here is an interesting article (at the end of my post http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/05...e-declaration/ ) describing the response of 100 prominent orthodox rabbis to the concept of orthodoxy and gay marriage. What I see is them declaring love for the Jew who struggles with homosexuality but not confusing love with the clear Torah teaching on the prohibition of homosexual acts.

I have read many times that the ancient sexual laws of Leviticus do not apply today...but I disagree. At the very first coucil, the Jerusalem Council, where all the leaders came together to determine what laws the converted Gentiles were to follow, this is what is recorded in Acts 15:19-21.

Acts 15:19-21 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since [k]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Four things are listed here...one of the things listed is fornication. So, the question becomes, "How does one define fornication...what does abstaining from fornication mean for a New Testament Christian who is a converted Gentile?" The answer is found in the very next sentence...for Moses (the Torah) is read in every city, in every synagogue, on every Sabbath and it has been this way since ancient times. There is the implication in this scripture that Gentiles can find further instruction regarding these laws in the synagogue of their town. The four terms are not floating out there on their own...these words recorded in Acts, are firmly anchored in the Torah. I never see this brought up in discussion. I have seen people try to dismiss the sexual laws of Leviticus by asking if we should stone our children for rebellion etc. (see West Wing clip), but we were not put under that law at the Jerusalem council. We, as Gentile Christians, were however instructed to follow very limited portions of the law...and sexual immorality, as defined in the Torah was one of those portions.

The other things that were forbidden were things involving idol worship, blood, strangled. Our English Bibles have taken the liberty of adding meaning to these words. I believe we have misunderstood the word blood. There is nothing in the text that indicates that blood has anything to do with dietary laws. "Blood" is a Hebrew idiom that means murder. I believe that was the meaning when these words were recorded by Jews. There is also not a context qualifier for the word strangled. I believe the word refers to the very common practice during this time period of Gentiles strangling their newborn baby girls...and if that is true, it would be a subcategory, a clarification of the prohibition of Gentile infanticide/ murder. So, for the moment, setting aside "strangled" and just looking at the other three things...if the Jewish scholars who have studied the words of Acts are correct, we have these three abstinance categories...

1. Worship of other gods
2. Sexual Immorality
3. Murder

These are the same three categories of Torah that no Jew was allowed to break for any reason. At the time of Jesus the rabbinic principle of "Pikuach Nephesh" (pi-KOO-akh NEH-fesh) - The Preservation of Life, was in place. There were provisions for breaking almost all of the commandments if it meant saving someone from death, except, the commandments against fornication, murder, and the worship of other gods. As a Gentile Christian, I believe these three sections of Torah teaching, as handed down by the Jerusalem Council, the worship of other gods, sexual immorality and murder apply to us today. I cannot embrace the words of Acts 2 and discard the words of Acts 15:19-21. They were not spoken/and or written in a cultural void and we cannot read them apart from their context and culture. I have gay friends and I love them, I feel deep empathy for their struggle. One of my lesbian friends has adopted five special needs children with her partner. I am not saying that this is a topic without empathy and compassion...but I also have deep respect for the people who made up that council...and the decision they handed down...these people walked with Jesus. I'm not in any way trying to start more debat, as I know this is the Post Traditional Theology Forum. I just don't believe I have ever posted my complete view regarding this topic as it fits with this portion of scripture in Acts. I understand that others interpret this scripture in a different way.

*one rabbinic principle is "Pikuach Nephesh" (pi-KOO-akh NEH-fesh), which is the preservation of life.4 The rabbis saw that Leviticus 19:16 says, "Do not stand by while your brother's blood is shed" - meaning if someone's life is in danger, you must intervene. Also, the Torah says that the law was given in order to bring life, (Ex. 30:15-16), so they concluded that all laws (except a few) should be set aside to save a human life. ~ En Gedi Resource "Thinking Biblically takes Both Hands" http://www.egrc.net/articles/directo...ctor_1106.html

I'm including this clip from The West Wing...a show I loved...but this clip is a wonderful illustration off what I am speaking aboult, only a very limited portion of Torah law was placed on Gentiles. All the things Pres. Bartlett lists are laws that were not placed on Gentiles...selling daughter into slavery, putting to death someone who works on the Sabbath, touching the skin of dead pig makes one unclean...stoning brother John for planting different crops side by side...can a mother be burned in a small family gathering for wearing two different threads. But the teaching regarding sexual immorality was placed on us. In this clip, the President and the talk show host are both ignorant of what laws the Gentiles were to follow.



100 Orthodox Rabbis Issue Same Sex Marriage Declaration http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/05...e-declaration/

In response to a recent “Orthodox” same-sex marriage ceremony conducted in Washington, D.C. by Rabbi Steve Greenberg, – who is openly gay, and married Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan at the 6th & I Synagogue in Washington in November – over 100 Orthodox Rabbis – among them some of the most prominent rabbinic figures in the Orthodox Jewish world, including Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Hershel Reichman of Yeshiva University and Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Safra Synagogue – issued a statement declaring that, “By definition, a union that is not sanctioned by Torah law is not an Orthodox wedding, and by definition a person who conducts such a ceremony is not an Orthodox rabbi.” They also dispelled any doubt over possible flexibility on the matter in the future, writing, “We strongly object to this desecration of Torah values and to the subsequent misleading reportage…the public should not be misled into thinking that Orthodox Jewish values on this issue can change, are changing, or might someday change…any claims to the contrary are inaccurate and false.” (For the full statement and list of signatures see below)

Many Orthodox congregations have homosexuals as members, and generally speaking, they are accepted without reservations. One Orthodox rabbi – who did not wish to be named – who has homosexual and trans-gender members in his congregation told the Algemeiner: “There is no such thing as a Jew who does not have spiritual struggles and challenges. We accept Jews who do not fully observe the Sabbath and do not keep kosher, and we accept those who struggle with sexual issues. However, just as we cannot accept someone who promotes desecration of the Sabbath and abandoning the laws of kashrut (kosher), or actively advocates adultery, we cannot accept someone who actively and publicly, promotes the practice of homosexuality.”

Although the 100+ rabbis take a firm stand against same-gender marriage, they are also sympathetic to to those of alternate sexual orientation, describing them as “challenged” they add, “We as rabbis, lovingly play a crucial role in helping Jews who may be facing great personal challenges to feel comfortable and welcome in our communities…some individuals experience deep inner conflict as they seek a holy path to serve God…we devote our lives towards helping all those in our broader community achieve their loftiest spiritual potential, while fully upholding the timeless values expressed in our Holy Torah.”

The full statement and list of signatures:

Orthodox Rabbis Stand On Principle

Recently, an American Jewish clergyman officiated at a matrimonial ceremony that is incorrectly being reported by some in the media as “the first time that an ordained Orthodox Rabbi has officiated at a same-sex marriage in the United States.”

We, as rabbis from a broad spectrum of the Orthodox community around the world, wish to correct the false impression that an Orthodox-approved same-gender wedding took place. By definition, a union that is not sanctioned by Torah law is not an Orthodox wedding, and by definition a person who conducts such a ceremony is not an Orthodox rabbi.

Jewish tradition unequivocally teaches that marriage can only exist as a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of a homosexual relationship. It is a distortion of Torah to confound that sacred principle. We strongly object to this desecration of Torah values and to the subsequent misleading reportage.

We appreciate the sensitive nature of intimacy. We, as rabbis, lovingly play a crucial role in helping Jews who may be facing great personal challenges to feel comfortable and welcome in our communities. Rabbis are always available to discuss congregants’ personal issues, including intimacy. We understand from our experiences in offering pastoral care that some individuals experience deep inner conflict as they seek a holy path to serve G-d and to fulfill their spiritual needs. As rabbis, we devote our lives towards helping all those in our broader community achieve their loftiest spiritual potential, while fully upholding the timeless values expressed in our Holy Torah.

The public should not be misled into thinking that Orthodox Jewish views on this issue can change, are changing, or might someday change. The Rabbinical Council of America recently declared that “the Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.” This is the only statement on this matter that can reflect Orthodox Judaism. Any claims or statements to the contrary are inaccurate and false.

[Steven Burton]

Well the author of this article is conservative. So Orthodox Judaism would not effect him. Since they are both branches of Judaism much like Greek Orthodox Church is to Protestantism. You come and go between the two branches. Also the author of this article associates himself with conservative in politics.