Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Matthew 8:5-13, New English Bible
"When he had entered Capernaum a centurion came up to ask his help 'Sir,' he said, 'a boy/pais of mine lies at home paralysed and racked with pain.' Jesus said, 'I will come and cure him.' But the centurion replied, 'Sir, who am I to have you under my roof? You need only say the word and the boy/pais will be cured. I know, for I am myself under orders, with soldiers under me. I say to one, "Go", and he goes; to another, "Come here", and he comes; and to my servant/doulos, "Do this", and he does it.' Jesus heard him with astonishment, and said to the people who were following him, 'I tell you this: nowhere, even in Israel, have I found such faith. 'Many, I tell you, will come from east and west to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven. But those who were born to the kingdom will be driven out into the dark, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.' Then Jesus said to the centurion, 'Go home now; because of your faith, so let it be.' At that moment the boy/pais recovered.”
Capernaum served as a garrison town and administrative center, making it a strategic location for Roman forces and Jewish communities alike. There were four ranks of centurions, the Primus Pilus being the highest in rank and this centurion, who had power and wealth to build a synagogue for the Jews, would probably be this top rank. He would be much like an executive with wide administrative duties.
While centurions weren’t always officially allowed to marry, many did—either through privilege, loopholes, or after retirement. While Roman soldiers were banned from marrying during service, they frequently had unofficial relationships, including with male slaves or companions.
Lk 7:2 reads that the servant-boy was “dear to him”, and the NET Bible reads “tn The term ἔντιμος (entimos) could mean ‘highly valued,’ but this sounds too much like the slave was seen as an asset, while the text suggests a genuine care for the person. More archaically, it could be said the centurion was fond of this slave.”
This passage, which is about the Gentile Centurion’s great faith, does not explicitly confirm a romantic, or love relationship between himself and his servant-boy, but for the high-ranking Centurion to leave home to seek out Jesus, seems significant. John Gill comments: “Luke says, he ‘was dear unto him’; in great esteem, highly valued, and much beloved: and also, that the centurion was a good master; he does not put his sick servant from him, but takes care of him at home, and seeks out for relief for him, being greatly desirous of his life. And as his keeping him at home discovered a tender regard to him; so his not bringing him forth, or ordering him to be brought out to Christ, which was sometimes done in such cases”.
While it was culturally possible in the first century for a Roman centurion to have a male lover, the biblical text does not explicitly state this, leaving the nature of the relationship open to interpretation. But to think of a Roman soldier of the Centurion’s rank, a battle-hardened man; for him to have such tender care for his one servant-boy that he goes out seeking Jesus, seems to tell more than just the explicit statements given to us in scripture state. Was it possible it was a romantic relationship? If so, did Jesus find it a matter irrelevant to mention?
In one’s interpretation of this account of the Centurion’s great faith, as it pertains to his relationship with his beloved servant-boy, the historical context does leave open the possibility of a romantic attachment here. A person could have an opinion or personal viewpoint on this question, but it is certainly not something to be taught as biblical FACT to another, but I have to admit I have had to pause and ponder this. Prior to this study, I thought any idea of a romantic connection here was merely liberal twisting of scripture, but I’ve had to back off having such a dogmatic rejection of the possibility. I personally do not see scripture condemning two males for having a loving, romantic relationship, but I just never previously thought that this passage could be seen in this manner. The Greek words used to describe the servant-boy do not settle the question, it is largely about historical context, and one’s understanding of a typical male’s romantic nature. Is it possible for anyone to be truly objective in their view of this passage? I doubt it.
"When he had entered Capernaum a centurion came up to ask his help 'Sir,' he said, 'a boy/pais of mine lies at home paralysed and racked with pain.' Jesus said, 'I will come and cure him.' But the centurion replied, 'Sir, who am I to have you under my roof? You need only say the word and the boy/pais will be cured. I know, for I am myself under orders, with soldiers under me. I say to one, "Go", and he goes; to another, "Come here", and he comes; and to my servant/doulos, "Do this", and he does it.' Jesus heard him with astonishment, and said to the people who were following him, 'I tell you this: nowhere, even in Israel, have I found such faith. 'Many, I tell you, will come from east and west to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven. But those who were born to the kingdom will be driven out into the dark, the place of wailing and grinding of teeth.' Then Jesus said to the centurion, 'Go home now; because of your faith, so let it be.' At that moment the boy/pais recovered.”
Capernaum served as a garrison town and administrative center, making it a strategic location for Roman forces and Jewish communities alike. There were four ranks of centurions, the Primus Pilus being the highest in rank and this centurion, who had power and wealth to build a synagogue for the Jews, would probably be this top rank. He would be much like an executive with wide administrative duties.
While centurions weren’t always officially allowed to marry, many did—either through privilege, loopholes, or after retirement. While Roman soldiers were banned from marrying during service, they frequently had unofficial relationships, including with male slaves or companions.
Lk 7:2 reads that the servant-boy was “dear to him”, and the NET Bible reads “tn The term ἔντιμος (entimos) could mean ‘highly valued,’ but this sounds too much like the slave was seen as an asset, while the text suggests a genuine care for the person. More archaically, it could be said the centurion was fond of this slave.”
This passage, which is about the Gentile Centurion’s great faith, does not explicitly confirm a romantic, or love relationship between himself and his servant-boy, but for the high-ranking Centurion to leave home to seek out Jesus, seems significant. John Gill comments: “Luke says, he ‘was dear unto him’; in great esteem, highly valued, and much beloved: and also, that the centurion was a good master; he does not put his sick servant from him, but takes care of him at home, and seeks out for relief for him, being greatly desirous of his life. And as his keeping him at home discovered a tender regard to him; so his not bringing him forth, or ordering him to be brought out to Christ, which was sometimes done in such cases”.
While it was culturally possible in the first century for a Roman centurion to have a male lover, the biblical text does not explicitly state this, leaving the nature of the relationship open to interpretation. But to think of a Roman soldier of the Centurion’s rank, a battle-hardened man; for him to have such tender care for his one servant-boy that he goes out seeking Jesus, seems to tell more than just the explicit statements given to us in scripture state. Was it possible it was a romantic relationship? If so, did Jesus find it a matter irrelevant to mention?
In one’s interpretation of this account of the Centurion’s great faith, as it pertains to his relationship with his beloved servant-boy, the historical context does leave open the possibility of a romantic attachment here. A person could have an opinion or personal viewpoint on this question, but it is certainly not something to be taught as biblical FACT to another, but I have to admit I have had to pause and ponder this. Prior to this study, I thought any idea of a romantic connection here was merely liberal twisting of scripture, but I’ve had to back off having such a dogmatic rejection of the possibility. I personally do not see scripture condemning two males for having a loving, romantic relationship, but I just never previously thought that this passage could be seen in this manner. The Greek words used to describe the servant-boy do not settle the question, it is largely about historical context, and one’s understanding of a typical male’s romantic nature. Is it possible for anyone to be truly objective in their view of this passage? I doubt it.
