Jesus and same-sex unions

Consequently, even if the centurion and his subordinate did have a sexual encounter, it doesn't logically follow that Jesus' miracle validated every facet of that bond. As a matter of fact, the term "relationship" is truly a softened description, seeing as this would encompass a circumstance of an older man acquiring a younger male for carnal purposes, or what we might label a "sex slave." I find it dubious that the revisionist critic would describe this event by stating, 'Jesus restores a master-slave connection via a healing miracle and subsequently holds up a sex-trafficker as a paradigm of faith for all to emulate.'

The authors of this piece acknowledge that this connection could seem "repugnant," yet they dismiss it by suggesting that marriage in that era was also essentially a kind of servitude, so what's the big deal? They write, 'In that culture, if you were a homosexual man who desired a male ‘spouse,' you achieved this, similar to your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial exchange—purchasing an individual to fulfill that function. A servant obtained to fulfill this function was often known as a pais.'

There exist distinctions: while slaves couldn't "divorce" their masters, wives could divorce their husbands (see Mark 10:12). But more importantly, Jesus extends compassion to individuals despiteof their transgressions, and His healings and deliverance from harm are invitations to spiritual redemption. For instance, Jesus rescued the woman caught in adultery from execution, not for her to return to her sinful ways, but to allow her to repent of them. That's why he stated to her, 'Do not sin again' (John 8:11).

With that said, there's no evidence indicating that the centurion and his slave were actually involved in a carnal relationship. New Testament professor John Byron states:

The Greek noun pais appears in the New Testament twenty-four times and encompasses meanings like 'adolescent,' 'child,' and 'servant.' [In the Greek Old Testament, i]t manifests numerous times and invariably signifies a 'servant.' There exist no instances of the term anywhere in the Bible that can be interpreted [as] pertaining to the junior participant in a homosexual relationship.

Other endeavors to extract covert pro-homosexual meanings from Scripture are likewise questionable. It's no surprise, then, that the arguments in favor of a 'gay-affirming' Jesus typically originate from a vacuum—arguments anchored on what Jesus didn't articulate. They assert, in essence, that since Jesus never condemned homosexuality, He must not have perceived anything wrong with it. In a 2012 interview, former president Jimmy Carter essentially did just that when he stated:

Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things—he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

Given that there's a persistent custom of Christians condemning same-sex conduct since the inception of the Church's history, we can confidently deduce that this custom originates from Jesus and the apostles. Indeed, it would be quite unusual if Jesus approved of homosexual conduct solely for all of His followers to teach the contrary—including Paul, who Jesus designated as an apostle and divinely inspired author but who explicitly condemns homosexual conduct in his own writings (Rom. 1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:10).

The Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is in a legal marriage with another man, and yet when it comes to Jesus' silence on homosexuality, he concedes, 'One cannot extrapolate affirmation of such relationships from that silence.' Robinson instead contends that all 'we can safely and responsibly conclude from Jesus' silence is that he was silent on the issue' (God Believes in Love, 83-84). I question if Robinson would similarly say that 'all we can safely and responsibly conclude from Jesus' silence on polygamy, incest, bestiality, idolatry, and child sacrifice is that he was silent on those issues.'

He very likely wouldn't, seeing as Jesus' validation of the Old Testament's prohibitions on, for instance, murder demonstrate that He would have never supported child sacrifice, making it an absurd query to pose. Likewise, Jesus' endorsement of the Old Testament's prohibitions on sexual immorality reveals that He would never have supported sexual activity between people of the same sex, or any kind of conduct that transgressed the universal moral code.

Nonetheless, that does not signify Jesus would have merely stood in condemnation of those who violated God's moral law. Instead, He offered to them (which encompasses you and me) the benevolent offer of redemption through Him. According to New Testament professor Robert Gagnon:

What was distinctive about Jesus' ministry was not that he refused to make judgments about the conduct of others, or even that he lowered his moral standards. On the contrary, in many areas he elevated those standards. What was distinctive was his incredibly generous spirit even toward those who had lived in gross disobedience to God for years. He expended enormous effort and exhibited great compassion in the search for the lost. Jesus did not wait for the lost to come to him. He went looking for them (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 212).

MoralityScripture