I thought I had seen just about every possible scheme from the pro homosexual crowd in their trying to spin and reinterpret the Bible to excuse their sinful lifestyles. I have seen people claim that Jonathan and David from the Old Testament were homosexual lovers. I have heard others call Ruth and Naomi lesbians. Both of those accusations are absurd but people will do just about anything to try and calm their conscious and justify their actions. The newest pro homosexual Biblical passage spun to try and convince everyone that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is the Roman officer and his servant. Here is the passage. The account is found in two of the synoptic Gospels.
5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.” 7 Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 “For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go !’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come !’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this !’ and he does it.” 10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. 11 “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven ; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness ; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go ; it shall be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed that very moment. (Matthew 8)
The parallel account is found is Luke.
1 When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. 2 And a centurion’s slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. 4 When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, “He is worthy for You to grant this to him; 5 for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue.” 6 Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, “Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof ; 7 for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 “For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go !’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come !’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this !’ and he does it.” 9 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.” 10 When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health. (Luke 7)
So you may be thinking, “how could this passage be used to justify homosexuality?” Here is where the fun begins, some real mental gymnastics must be performed to get to the homosexual aspect.
The first account is written by Matthew, a Jewish tax collector whose life was changed by the Lord Jesus Christ. He wants to write out an account of what he witnessed while walking with and learning from Jesus Christ. In his Gospel, he chooses the word “pais” to designate the Roman officer’s slave or servant. Pais is a word that means “young slave or servant” and can refer to a boy or a girl. The homosexuals love to latch on to words and construct arguments out of thin air instead of debating by actually using the text and its surrounding context. You will see them do this by latching on to a person’s word, ripping it from the context, and then spinning the argument to explain “what the author really meant to say”. This happens in the political arena every single day. This is exactly what they have done here. They claim that “pais” refers to a young male and that this young male is the Roman officer’s lover. By doing this, they then claim that Jesus does not condemn their homosexual relationship but instead, He actually blessed it because He heals the young boy/man so that they can continue their “relationship” together. From the text, there is no hint of their being a homosexual relationship. We do not even know if the slave is male or female. We do know that the servant is young (probably a teen). The English translators assume that the servant is male and insert the pronoun “him” but the original Greek word used could be either make or female. So again, 2 assumptions are made on behalf of the homosexual crowd, 1) the servant is male, and 2) there is an implied homosexual relationship.
Dr. Luke, a Gentile, and extremely well educated man, also included this account in his Gospel. He did not choose the same word that Matthew did. He chose the word “doulos” which is the same word that Paul chose to describe himself, a bondservant, or slave of Jesus Christ. Again, there is no indication from the text, nor from the specific words chosen, to indicate that there was any kind of homosexual relationship between the Roman officer and his servant (possibly male, or female). This is just pure speculation of behalf of the homosexual crowd. The Bible condemns the sin of homosexuality in all of its forms in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus, Himself, agreed with the punishment that those who lived the homosexual lifestyle in Sodom received.
We do see two amazing qualities about the Roman officer. 1) He is a man of faith. He believes in Jesus Christ. 2) He humbles himself under Jesus’ authority. From what I have seen about rebellious sinners who live in open sin (homosexuality is open sin), they do not want to believe the Words of Jesus, especially when it comes to teachings against homosexuality and they do not want to humble themselves under Jesus Christ’s authority.
What about you, are you a person of faith like the Roman officer or are you a proud person who thinks that you know better than God does? The Roman officer had reasons to be proud because of his position in society yet he chose to humble himself. Where do you stand when it comes to Jesus Christ and the Word of God, are you proud, arrogant, and lost or are you humble, respectful, and obedient?
Erik and Elena Brewer's Weblog 
The sin of Sodom was homosexuality, according to many Christians (but not according to the Bible). We are told by modern preachers that Sodom’s destruction proves that homosexuality was the problem in Sodom and therefore, homosexuality is wrong.
But homosexuality was the problem of Sodom, the Bible is very clear on that.
Jesus agrees with the punishment of the Sodomites.
Peter explains what their deeds were, that is, why they were punished, how they were living.
They Sodomites thought that the angels were men. They wanted to have sexual relations with other men.
Ezekiel explains that they practiced sexual sins, including homosexuality.
Leviticus explains what an abomination is.
You really have no argument when compared to what the Bible actually teaches.
Actually Eric, the bible is not clear at all, and neither are the versus you quoted. This allows you to can mix & match versus from all over the place and interpret it to “prove” whatever you want. Just as believers used it in the past to prove that slavery was OK and appointed by their god. But while modern believers like to “prove” that homosexuality is wrong by quoting Leviticus, they always seem to skip the versus that condemn wearing garments of mixed threads or eating shellfish.
Actually, the Bible condemns slavery, but I guess you missed that fact. See here. Really, you want to compare a ceremonial law to a moral one? There is a difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. The slightest bit of intellectual integrity will lead one to understand this concept.
I think that the slightest bit of intellectual integrity would lead one to acknowledge that the bible actually does promote slavery – eg, the numerous times that Israel was charged by god to take their defeated enemies as slaves (which is a lot different to someone selling himself into slavery to pay his debts, as the example at your link mentions).
OK, that was the OT – things have changed, haven’t they?
Your link also mentions 1 Timothy, where we see that slave traders are condemned. Not slave owners, but slave traders. In much the same way as we include used-car salesmen when we’re talking about popular examples of low-lifes in today’s world (although lawyers are also included there today – I guess they were then as well).
Even the story in this post mentions that Jesus spoke to a centurion whose slave was ill. Rather than telling the centurion to free the slave (which would have supported your idea that god no longer likes slavery), Jesus doesn’t mention that. He just says that the centurion has great faith – and the slave is healed. Not freed.
If you look at the commands given to the children of Israel before conquering the land of Canaan, you will see that God did not allow them to take prisoners as slaves. God told them to put them to death or drive them out of the land completely. God also told them what problems they (the Israelites) would have if they disobeyed Him and did not drive out the inhabitants. The Israelites were disobedient to God, they took slaves, and paid the price for it. Intellectual integrity means actually doing some research on the subject (from the source itself).
Wait, so Jesus, God, and the Bible are at fault because the Romans had slaves?
The passage in I Timothy condemns slavery, like bribes, both the one who gives and the one who takes are at fault (and the one who turns a blind eye as well).
At last – something we can agree on: that Jesus was at fault for turning a blind eye to the fact that the centurion had a slave.
Keep in mind that servants and slaves can be to different things, especially a bond-servant, one who is there of his own free will. Jesus did not turn a blind eye. Plus, you blame Jesus for the actions of a Roman. Why not blame the Roman for having the slave? (if he were a slave instead of a servant). How do you know that this Roman did not take this young person off the streets and give him/her a place to live and food to eat along with responsibilities so that he/she could learn to be a productive citizen in society?
Eric, we don’t know how or why this centurion had a slave, we just know that the bible tells us he had one. Feel free to bend and twist things any way you like so that you don’t have to face the the fact that Jesus didn’t tell the centurion – a follower of Jesus who would surely have done what Jesus himself, personally told him – to free his slave.
And getting back to your earlier comment about the difference between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws – yes, obviously there are differences. But there’s also a similarity: they are all in the bible. But believers just pick the ones that match their own preferences and ignore the ones they’re not interested in.
He could have been a servant in the house. The word that is used in not “slave” alone but could also be “servant”. (bond-servant translated in many English versions, which has its origins in Deuteronomy 15:12-18). You assume that he/she is a slave, in the home by force instead of freewill. If he is a servant in the home, taken off the streets by the Centurion, to have shelter and food as well as learning how to be a responsible citizen, then how humane would it be for the Centurion to send him away to fend for himself on the streets? You assume way too much when you read this passage in the Bible. There is a lot of context that you do not seem to be aware of.
I am glad that you can admit the difference between a moral and ceremonial law. All the dietary and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The moral ones were too but they still remain valid. Again, you do not know much about the context of the Bible which you are fighting against. You should study your enemy a little better 🙂
Eric, you assume at least as much as I do to make the story seem less painful and make it seem less like Jesus promotes slavery.
And you like to think that some laws were fulfilled so you don’t have to follow them (because I guess that would mean you have to change the way you do things). But you also like to think that another set of laws – that happen to match your own prejudices – still apply. If it walks like a prejudice and quacks like a prejudice, then it is a prejudice 😉
Jesus does not promote slavery. There is nothing in the Matthew text or in the Luke text that would suggest slavery. Mathew chooses the word “pais” which is used for “a young child, boy or girl, infants, children, servant, an attendant, a king’s attendant, minister” (Strong’s Number: 3816)
Luke uses the word “dolous” (which is how Paul describes himself, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ). This figure of speech has its roots in the Deuteronomy passage that I mentioned earlier. You see I am explaining this passage with a Biblical and cultural context. You just have your assumptions that you “feel” are right. One is based on actual evidence. The other is based on a worldview that assumes instead of actually seeks proof.
It is not a matter of what I “think, feel, or believe”. The Bible clearly states that Jesus fulfills the ceremonial purposes of the Law because they were types and shadows of what was to come in the Messiah. Again, I am arguing with Biblical proof while you are assuming again.