Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Jesus, clobber-texts, and the centurion’s ‘companion’

Jesus, clobber-texts, and the centurion’s ‘companion’

Last updated on: May 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm by Fred Clark

Jesus, clobber-texts, and the centurion’s ‘companion’ 2014-05-02T20:28:41-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“What does pais mean in Luke 7?”

That was a text from my daughter. The old jokes say that when your kids go off to college, they only call to ask for money. My kid never asks for money, but she does like to keep me on my toes with the occasional surprise text asking about the first-century connotations of Greek words from the Gospels. (Yes, I’m enormously proud of her.)

This question has to do with the story in Luke’s Gospel (and also in Matthew 8:5-13) in which Jesus heals the pais of a Roman centurion. Our English translations almost always use the word “servant” or “slave” for that word, as in this rendition in the NRSV:

After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.”

And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”

When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

That’s not wrong, but this wasn’t the only way that word pais was used in Jesus’ time. We think it usually meant servant or slave, but it also sometimes meant son. And also, sometimes, it was a euphemism for, basically, a man’s boyfriend or a younger, same-sex concubine.

It’s not unusual for words to have such very different meanings. Think of the many ways we use the word “companion.” Strictly speaking, it just means someone with whom one travels or with whom one spends a lot of time. It’s thus a common term for personal assistants — people in an economic relationship with an employer who would, in a more class-candid culture, be referred to as “servants.” So we might say, for instance, that “Adrian Monk arrived at the crime scene accompanied by his companion, Natalie Teeger,” and it would be a mistake to infer anything more intimate or romantic implied by the term.

But we also use that same word in a more “insinuating” way (as Jeff Bridges says in The Fisher King). We use it in much the same way first-century people sometimes used that word pais — to politely, indirectly describe an intimate, affectionate physical relationship. If we say “Matt Damon won an Emmy for portraying Liberace’s companion in Behind the Candelabra,” most people will understand that we mean something very different from what we meant about Monk and Natalie.

The centurion in Luke 7 seems so heartbroken over the plight of his “beloved” pais that some have argued the word there might be better translated as “son.” His anguish seems surprising, after all, on behalf of a slave or servant. Others point to that same deep emotion and see it as evidence that suggests we’re dealing with the other meaning of pais. But perhaps both of those arguments are too harsh — maybe this centurion just loved this loyal, faithful servant. Maybe it was just a Frodo-and-Sam situation. (Or is that a bad example? I mean Frodo and Sam as intended by Tolkien, not as written by him.)

It’s helpful, I think, to illustrate that ambiguity by using our own ambiguous term. “But only speak the word, and let my companion be healed.”

I’m not trying to explain away that ambiguity — in either direction. And I’m not sure the parallel version of the story in Matthew or the maybe-parallel story in John’s Gospel — in which the word “son” is used instead — gets us any closer to conclusive certainty about the relationship between this centurion and his pais. The story simply doesn’t give us enough information to be certain.

But then the story also doesn’t give Jesus enough information to be certain either. And Jesus never interrogates the man on that point. We don’t see a conversation like this:

“But only speak the word, and let my pais be healed.”

“Whoa, hold on. When you say pais, do you mean just, like, pais -pais? Or do you mean, you know, nudge nudge, wink wink, [Jesus makes air quotes with his fingers] pais?”

Jesus didn’t ask that, and he didn’t insist on entering the centurion’s home in order to inspect whatever living arrangements the man had with this beloved companion of his. Jesus simply praised the centurion’s faith and restored health and wholeness to his household and to all the relationships in it. That’s all we know for sure from the story.

Well, that and that the centurion was a centurion.

Jesus knew what that meant. Luke knew what that meant and Luke expected his readers to know what that meant. Heck, even the centurion himself knew what that meant, which is why he sent the elders from the synagogue in Capernaum to speak on his behalf.

The centurion was unclean. He was a Gentile — strike one. He had sworn an oath of loyalty and service to a false god (Caesar) — strike two. And even if this particular centurion was trying his best to be nice about it, he was the enemy and part of an occupying army oppressing God’s people — strike three.

So for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that “slave” or “servant” is a perfectly accurate translation here, an apt description of an unambiguously chaste master-and-servant relationship insinuating nothing that might perturb the sensibilities of even the most anti-gay modern clobber-texter. This story is still impossible to reconcile with the hermeneutic of those clobber-texters. Set aside the half-dozen clobber-texts cited as authoritative proof that Christians must be anti-gay, there are far, far more such texts authoritatively forbidding Jesus to aid this unclean enemy, this Caesar-worshipping Gentile. The clobber-texts forbidding that could fill a book. They could fill 39 books, and then some.

“It is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile,” Jesus’ disciple Peter said. And that was true. That was law. That was Bible.

But Jesus doesn’t mention any of those clobber texts. Nor does he heed them.

Instead, Jesus heads directly to the unclean home of this unclean outsider. He exhibits an appallingly low view of the authority of scripture by — what’s the word they always use? — trampling on the clear, authoritative teachings of the Bible. Jesus turns his back on the Bible to serve the “false gospel of nice,” following some “malleable deity” instead of obeying the unequivocal clear commandments of the Word of God.

It’s enough to make one wonder whether Jesus was even a Christian at all.

I don’t think we have enough to go on in this sketchy little story to state confidently that Jesus healed a centurion’s boyfriend. But those who dismiss that possibility as outrageous are missing what’s really outrageous in this story — Jesus’ outrageous disregard for clobber-texting.

That’s not just poor biblical interpretation, it’s also a shameful ingratitude. The overwhelming majority of Christians who call upon clobber texts to slam the door against gay Christians are themselves Gentiles — people who are only able to call themselves Christians because Jesus showed us that clobber-texts don’t work that way. They snuck in through that same door they’re now trying to slam against others. That’s pretty low.

Previous Post

May 2, 2014

Well I can't see you and I'm out of your reach

Next Post

May 4, 2014 Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Shiloh" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God’s dwelling Prince of peace The chosen one He whose it is