The Meaning of "Pais" in Matthew 8 and Luke 7

Are some arguments that you wish you never had to actually respond to because they are just so bad, so poor, so dishonest, so far removed from the realm of possibility that to even have to waste one's time is a disappointment and it's a frustration.

Over the past couple of months as we have needed to respond to the flood of pro-homosexual perversion of scripture, misrepresentation of history, biblical languages, etc. etc. One of the arguments that I have not dealt with because it is just so bad and so far removed from anything that's even possible, I've decided today that we need to deal with it.

We need to deal with it not because it's become any better but because when it's posted on the Huffington Post, that means there are going to be people who are repeating it. And when the argument appeals to authority improperly, then we need to try to provide some information and help once again to encourage believers to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within them.

I refer to an article by J. Michelson, author of God vs. Gay, The Religious Case for Equality, and it is titled, When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner. In essence what you have is, I'm not going to argue, what about the fact that the only sanctioned relationship of the Bible is between a man and a woman?

The Claim That Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner

Well, in fact, that's not quite the case. The story of the faithful centurion, told in Matthew 8, 5 -13, and Luke 7, 1 -10, is about a Roman centurion who comes to Jesus and begs that Jesus heal his paes, a word sometimes translated as servant.

Jesus agrees and says he will come to the centurion's home, but the centurion says he does not deserve to have Jesus under his roof, and he has faith that if Jesus even utters a word of healing, the healing will be accomplished.

Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, and the paes is healed. This tale illustrates the power and importance of faith and how anyone can possess it. The centurion is not a Jew, yet he has faith in Jesus and is rewarded.

But paes does not mean servant, it means lover. This is, I'm reading directly from the article. In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, paes refers to junior partner in a same-sex relationship.

Now, this is not exactly marriage of equals. An arrestus paes relationship generally consisted of a somewhat older man, usually a soldier, between the ages of 18 and 30, and a younger adolescent, usually between the ages of 13 and 18.

We call that pedophilia today. Anyway, sometimes that adolescent was a slave, as seems to be the case here. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to use the word gay to describe such a relationship. The word, and its many connotations, comes from our time, not out of ancient Greece and Rome.

This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today. Well, isn't that odd that the LGBT folks would find it to be immoral, but somehow Jesus didn't? Well, this is the argumentation that is being put forward.

I've seen it on numerous websites, but the fact that it appeared on the Huffington Post, I felt that it would be good for a few moments to demonstrate, without any question, that this argumentation is, without a doubt, one of the most bogus, dishonest, untrue argumentations that could ever be presented by those who are attempting to pervert the Bible.

It is far easier for me to respect someone like Dan Savage, who simply says the Bible is bleep than it is the people who try to twist and pervert the Bible into something that it never could possibly be.

But, it makes more sense. If you're already twisting and perverting your own sexuality, if you're already twisting and perverting your own gender, then it makes sense that you would be twisting and perverting your teachings on the Bible, your use of scholarship, whatever else it might be.

Now, notice that Mr. Michelson specifically says, Pais does not mean servant, it means lover. Now, most people today have access to biblical programs on their computers. I highly recommend for those who, like I, use a Mac, the Accordance Bible software.

And, of course, having taught Greek many times in the past, most people know, who have had even a few, well, a few weeks of Greek, is that this is a basic word. It's used 24 times in the New Testament.

It is used only in Matthew, Luke, and Acts. And, it means child slash servant. Child slash servant. Now, Thucydides and Plato and others are hundreds of years prior to the New Testament. And, the argumentation presented, that I just read to you, partakes of an incredibly amateurish basic level error in regards to semantic domain and vocabulary studies, especially as they apply to the New Testament.

The primary source of vocabulary background and lexical information for the New Testament is not Thucydides. It would be the Greek Septuagint, first and foremost. The greatest influence upon New Testament Greek, as it is used in the New Testament itself, is that of the Greek Septuagint.

There's no question about that. There are so many times where you have terms that literally do not appear anywhere other than the Greek Septuagint that come into the text of the New Testament. We can simply look at, let's start with something rather basic.

And, that is, let's look at the lexicons, shall we? The low Anita lexicon based upon semantic domains. Now, by the way, paes. Paes is an interesting word because it can be used as either a masculine or a feminine to refer to either a boy or a girl, a son or a daughter.

So, if you use it with a masculine article, then you're referring to a little boy and feminine to a girl. So, paes, paedos, a young person normally below the age of puberty and without distinction as to sex.

The term paes may occur with either masculine or feminine articles of corresponding title attributes. These gender distinctions indicate whether the person referred to is male or female. With a masculine article or attributives, one may translate paes as boy.

And similarly, with female attributes, one may translate paes as girl. So, there's what you have. They don't even give here the meaning of servant. But let's go to a little bit more full lexical source.

And that is the current standard lexical source of Bauer, Dunker, Arndt, and Gingrich, third edition. Paes, paedos, either ha or he, a young person normally below the age of puberty with focus on age rather than social status, a boy or a youth.

Number two, one's own immediate offspring, child as son or daughter of a son, ha paes, of a daughter, he paes. Number three, one who is committed in total obedience to another, slave or servant of slaves and personal attendance, slave or servant of special relationships, humans as God's servants or slaves, angels as servants of God.

And is there anything else below that? That's the last of the major definitions that are provided by the primary Greek lexicon of the period of the Greek New Testament and immediately thereafter. Now, why don't they have, why don't they substantiate this assertion, but paes does not mean servant, it means lover.

Why didn't lovers show up here? Well, partly because we're actually dealing with how the word was used at the time of writing of the New Testament, not how it might've been used half a millennium earlier.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has graduate training in the language and has any sense of lexical semantics whatsoever would never, ever, ever be able to defend. I'm not saying they wouldn't say it because there's people will say all sorts of stupid things, but I can guarantee you, J. Michelson, I can guarantee you that Kenneth Dover could never defend those assertions.

They'll make them, you can find anybody with a degree after their name to say anything. Vast difference between getting them to say something and getting them to be able to defend this type of thing, okay?

So, the reason that we do not find these sources substantiating this is because there is no evidence that in the New Testament, this term is used in that way. And let's look at some of the New Testament usage to demonstrate that this is the case.

As I said, the term is used 24 times. It's found only in Matthew, in Luke, and in Acts. I'm sorry, I will take that back. There is a brief reference in John 4 .51 as well. As he was now going down, his slaves met him saying that his son was living, which interestingly enough, we'll come back to in just a moment because that is one of the texts that actually puts the death knell in this particular one, but we'll get to that one in just a moment.

But let's take this assertion because the assertion was not in any way given a context. There wasn't, it could mean this, and maybe there were some times in the past when it meant this. No, no, no. They're actually saying Pais does not mean servant.

It means lover. So, let's apply this to New Testament usage. So, when Herod saw, this is Matthew 2 .16, that he had been tricked by the Magi, he became enraged and sent and slew all the male lovers who were in Bethlehem and all in the vicinity.

Is that what he did? No, he slew the male children, two years old and under. So, that must have been the two years old and under lovers, right? Because that's what, it's the term Pais, Paidas. So, if you're going to make the assertion, this is what the term means.

Didn't say it's what the term means in this particular text because then you'd have to demonstrate from that particular text that Pais is being used in a way that's used nowhere else in the New Testament.

So, we're just demonstrating the abject absurdity, abject absurdity of this kind of assertion. We know that it's found in Matthew chapter 8 because that's the section we're going to be looking at. We'll come back to that one in just a moment.

But interestingly enough, in Matthew chapter 12, verse 18, we have a citation of the Greek Septuagint and it's being used of Jesus's relationship to God. Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my Pais.

So, are you actually going to suggest, and I hate to have to say this, but there are actually people so perverted in their thinking that they actually have suggested that this shows inter-trinitarian homosexuality.

That has been suggested by people who are part of the homosexual studies section of the Society for Biblical Literature. I will sit back for a moment while you express your utter amazement at such blasphemy, but there is no limit to how far people will go.

Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. There you have it being used in the Gospel of Matthew and it's Ha Paismu.

Verse, Matthew 14, 2,. And said to his servants, twice, Paisan al too, this is John the Baptist. Was this to his lovers? Of course not. In Luke 1, 54, he has given help to Israel his servant, Pidas al too.

Does this have something to do with lover? Is God, is Israel the lover? Of course not. So, we've seen, there's just so many, so many texts. Uh, we see immediately that anyone who simply makes the statement that Pais means lover, it does not mean servant, is lying.

There's no other way to put it. This is indefensible. It is completely beyond the bounds of anyone who is a serious scholar. No serious scholar could ever, ever defend this assertion. So, we see that the assertion made at the Huffington Post is a lie.

It's not overly surprising that because it's at the Huffington Post, but it's a lie. Now, let's continue though in the refutation of the argument and try to improve the argument and still demonstrate that this story, this, this argument that Jesus knew that this was a same-sex relationship and that he is approving of it, is absolutely, positively, completely without foundation.

It is a perversion and twisting the text and no honest person, no honest person could ever present it. None. Can't be done. Let's look at the text. Matthew chapter 8 verse 5. And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him imploring him and saying, Lord, my Pais is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.

Jesus said to him, I will come and heal him. But the centurion said, Lord, I am not worthy of you to come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority with soldiers under me.

And I say to this one, go. And he goes and another come and he comes into my slave, do this. And he does it. 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.

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. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness and that place, there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

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. And Luke adds at the end of his discussion, he says, when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Because what you have in Luke is a little bit different. And this is something we've discussed in our synoptic gospel studies. And a centurion slave who was highly regarded by him was sick and about to die.

When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking him to come and save the life of the slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored him saying, he is worthy for you to grant this to him for he loves our nation.

And it was he who built us our synagogue. And so, at that point, you have an illustration of basically representation. When someone represents someone else, it's the same as if they themselves had come to Jesus, et cetera, et cetera.

So, Luke gives a little bit more of the detail. But what isn't mentioned by most folks is John also tells this story. Now, some scholars have identified this as a different story, but I don't think there's any reason to think that it is.

In John chapter 4. In John chapter 4, not one of the synoptic gospels, but in John chapter 4 verse 46. Therefore, he came again to Canaan of Galilee where he had made the water wine. And there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum.

When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to him, was imploring him to come down and heal his son for he was at the point of death. So, Jesus said to him, unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.

The royal official said to him, sir, come down before my child dies. Jesus said to him, go, your son lives. The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off. And as he was now going down, his slaves met him saying that his son was living.

Now, if this is the same story, then it's the death knell in, well, I guess I won't even say it's a death knell because you have to make an argument before you can put the death knell to it, okay? And there is nothing, absolutely, positively nothing in Matthew or Luke's rendition of this story that even begins to touch upon the issue of homosexuality, homosexual rape, pederasty, or anything even close to it.

The term pise used in the New Testament means child or servant. That's what it means in every usage. If you're going to say that at one place, at one place it means something else, then the weight is upon your shoulders to demonstrate from the context that your unique understanding of the use of that term is exactly what is indicated by the grammar, syntax, and context of the text itself.

You can't merely assert it, you have to prove it. That's what meaningful scholarship does. That's what people who actually translate the Bible have to be able to do. And there is no possible way to substantiate that assertion in either Matthew or Luke's versions.

Can't be done. If John is telling the same story, then notice something. In verse 46, 47, there it is. In verse 47, it says, autu tan huyan. Huyan is the standard term for son, male offspring, okay? Heal his son.

Then in verse 50, what do you have? Pahuyas suze. Jesus said, go, your son lives, right? Okay, so you've got your son lives. The man started off as he was going down, however, verse 51, his slaves met him saying, what?

Hapais autu ze. So the slaves use hapais, which means what? For John, hapais and hapuyas are being used interchangeably in this text. Nothing about lover. In fact, in this context, nothing about servant.

This is his son. So if John 4 is the same story, and I checked the synopsis quater euangeliarum earlier today, and it does put John 4 as the parallel to Matthew 8 and Luke 7, at least in the printed Greek version that I had.

Then if it is, then that's the end of that right there, okay? Even if it is not, when we go back to Matthew 8 and to Luke chapter 7, we find nothing that would substantiate the assertion made in the Huffington Post article, nothing to substantiate the assertion commonly made by pro-homosexuals who are attempting to pervert the teaching of scripture.

We find every reason on the planet to not believe that. Why? Because of the context. Look at Luke chapter 7. Who is it that comes to Jesus? It's the Jewish elders. And folks, you need to understand something.

There is not a scintilla of evidence to be found anywhere in ancient history of any Jewish person for hundreds of years before or after the time of Jesus promoting the idea that homosexuality was not anything other than one of the gravest sins against God.

The idea that Jewish elders would come to Jesus asking him to heal a love slave of a Roman centurion is so absurd that we should not have to be addressing this. But the reason we have to address this is because of the level of absurdity to which the dialogue has come.

So, you're sitting on a plane, and let's say you commit the terrible sin of having your Bible open. Maybe you got on early, you want to read something. I've had this happen. Of course, no one reads my iPad or something like that now, but you've got a Bible sitting there.

And someone sits down, and the conversation very quickly turns, well, you're not one of those folks that thinks that homosexuality is wrong. And they'll do that. I mean, you know, that's, they have become so incredibly offensive in pressing this perversion, calling what is good, evil, and evil, good, that that can happen.

And so, someone presents this to you. Well, how can you say that? In light of Jesus having healed a same-sex partner, what are you going to say? You don't have much time. You don't have as much time as I've taken.

We're about 23 minutes after the opening here, so I've taken some time. You know, I could probably have time to go into the background, and you probably don't have Bauer, Dunker, Arndt, and Gingrich in your Bible.

I've certainly got it on my iPad and my phone. But what are you going to do? Well, here's what I would suggest to you very briefly, and then we're going to take a quick break and then talk about some other things, shift gears a little bit.

What I would say is, well, you know, I've heard people make that argument, but the reason that Christians have never, ever understood that text that way is because it's simply impossible on any honest level to interpret hapais in that way.

There is no other place in all the scriptures, in the 24 places where it's used, that you could ever understand it to mean that. Jesus is called the Pais of God. Every lexicon says child or servant. The parallel text in John chapter 4 identifies it as son.

And the idea that the Jewish elders in Luke chapter 7 would be bringing to Jesus a request to heal the homosexual lover of a Roman centurion is beyond the level of laughable. So the question I would have for you is, upon what basis do you make this assertion?

And who are you trusting to give you this kind of information? That would lead to all sorts of possibilities of being able to demonstrate the fact that the Jewish people understood what the, you could go into the Old Testament law at that point.

Jesus is teaching about the Old Testament law that opens the possibility to go into Matthew chapter 19 and the positive presentation of Jesus' teaching about what marriage is and male and female and so forth.

But you need to be prepared. Look, my parents, you know, I don't know if my dad's listening to this, but I would imagine he was absolutely shocked when I presented this. I would imagine that people back then, back then, sorry dad, but people back in the olden days, this isn't, this isn't the kind of thing that was discussed.

This isn't the kind of argument that was presented. The people of the preceding generations did not have to be prepared for this kind of argumentation. You do.