Luke 7:1 - 10
7 After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 Now a centurion had a servant[a] who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. 3 When the centurion[b] heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” 6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too 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 servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Were these the same elders of the Jews who were trying to kill Him?
2. Why did the centurion not think he was worthy to have Jesus visit him?
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-7-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteOf the 33 miracles performed by the Lord Jesus, eleven of them were done in Capernaum and only two were done for Gentiles. This is one of them. This passage marks a turning point in Luke's account of Jesus' ministry. Up until this point, Jesus has dealt exclusively with the Jews; here he begins to include the Gentiles.
Capernaum is literally the village of Nahum that was located on the NW shore of Sea of Galilee.
In the society of that day, a slave was nothing, only a tool or a thing to be used as the owner wished. He had no rights whatsoever, not even the right to live. Note how he personally looked after the slave, a person who meant nothing to the rest of society. But his arms and love were wide open to do all he could to help this person who was helpless. This alone, helping a person who meant nothing to society, was bound to affect Christ dramatically.
I. THE PERFECT READINESS OF CHRIST.
1. He did not debate with the elders of the Jews, and show the weakness of their plea: "He was worthy" (Luke 7:4-5).
2. He cheerfully granted their request, although it was needless for him to come. "Then Jesus went with them" (Luke 7:6).
3. He did not raise a question about the change which the centurion proposed, although he was already on the road (Luke 7:6).
4. He did not suspect the good man's motive, as some might have done. He read his heart, and saw his true humility.
5. He did not demur to the comparison of himself to a petty officer. Our Lord is never captious; but takes our meaning.
6. He promptly accepted the prayer and the faith of the centurion, save the boon, and gave it as desired.
It is interesting that every centurion mentioned in the New Testament is presented in a favorable light. An effective servant of Christ needs an exalted view of Jesus, a lowly view of himself, and a caring view of others.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-7-commentary continued:
ReplyDeletePROBLEM: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus (Matt. 8:5); but, Luke seems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus (Luke 7:3). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.
SOLUTION: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself.
NET Note on Jewish elders - Why some Jewish elders are sent as emissaries is not entirely clear, but the centurion was probably respecting ethnic boundaries, which were important in ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish culture. The parallel account in Matt 8:5–13 does not mention the emissaries.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-7-commentary continued:
ReplyDelete(i) The mere fact that he was a centurion meant he was no ordinary man.
Polybius, the historian, describes their qualifications. They must be not so much “seekers after danger as men who can command, steady in action, and reliable; they ought not to be over anxious to rush into the fight; but when hard pressed they must be ready to hold their ground and die at their posts.”
(ii) He had a completely unusual attitude to his slave.
In Roman law a slave was defined as a living tool; he had no rights; a master could ill-treat him and even kill him if he chose. A Roman writer on estate management recommends the farmer to examine his implements every year and to throw out those which are old and broken, and to do the same with his slaves. Normally when a slave was past his work he was thrown out to die. The attitude of this centurion to his slave was quite unusual.
(iii) He was clearly a deeply religious man.
It is true that the Romans encouraged religion from the cynical motive that it kept people in order. They regarded it as the opiate of the people. Augustus recommended the building of synagogues for that very reason. As Gibbon said in a famous sentence, “The various modes of religion which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.” But this centurion was no administrative cynic; he was a sincerely religious man.
(iv) He had an extremely unusual attitude to the Jews.
If the Jews despised the gentiles, the gentiles hated the Jews. Antisemitism is not a new thing. The Romans called the Jews a filthy race; they spoke of Judaism as a barbarous superstition; they spoke of the Jewish hatred of mankind; they accused the Jews of worshipping an ass’s head and annually sacrificing a gentile stranger to their God. True, many of the gentiles, weary of the many gods and loose morals of paganism, had accepted the Jewish doctrine of the one God and the austere Jewish ethic. But the whole atmosphere of this story implies a close bond of friendship between this centurion and the Jews.
(v) He was a humble man.
He knew quite well that a strict Jew was forbidden by the law to enter the house of a gentile (Acts 10:28); just as he was forbidden to allow a gentile into his house or have any communication with him. He would not even come to Jesus himself. He persuaded his Jewish friends to approach him. This man who was accustomed to command had an amazing humility in the presence of true greatness.
(vi) He was a man of faith.
His faith is based on the soundest argument. He argued from the here and now to the there and then. He argued from his own experience to God. If his authority produced the results it did, how much more must that of Jesus? He came with that perfect confidence which looks up and says, “Lord, I know you can do this.”
-----
IVP Background Commentary - During their twenty or so years of service in the Roman army, soldiers were not permitted to marry. Many had illegal local concubines, an arrangement that the army overlooked and the concubines found profitable. But centurions, who could be moved around more frequently, would be less likely than ordinary soldiers to have such relationships; they often married only after retirement. By ancient definitions, however, a household could include servants, and household servants and masters sometimes grew very close—especially if they made up the entire family unit.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-7-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteLuke 7:9 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."
Who are those who were following? This crowd had to include His disciples, but also probably some of the "brood of vipers," who were now "hot on His trail" and would not give up their hunt until they killed Him! However, there is no doubt that Jesus as the Master Teacher was using the Roman centurion as a teaching point to His disciples ("learners")! Jesus' point is that in Israel, that is, among the ethnic Jews who even had access to the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, Jesus could find no Jew with faith like this centurion. The special privileges of the Jews sadly did not result in a greater percent believing in Jesus.
Ryle on amazed - There are two occasions where it is recorded that our Lord Jesus Christ “marveled,” once in this history, and once in Mark 6:6. It is remarkable that in one case He is described as marveling at “faith,” and in the other as marveling at “unbelief.” The expression is one of those which show the reality of our Lord’s human nature. In the case in Mark the marveling is evidently a marveling of sorrow. In the case before us it is a marveling of admiration. Burkitt remarks, “Let it teach us to place our admiration where Christ placed His. Let us be more affected with the least measure of grace in a good man, than with all the gaieties and glories of a great man.” Our Lord, be it remembered, did not marvel at the gorgeous and beautiful buildings of the Jewish temple. But he did marvel at faith.
The verb even pictures Jesus walking throughout the land of Israel for 3 years, seeking for those who had tender, open hearts that would believe in His Word. Indeed the primary purpose for the incarnation of Jesus is expressed in His own words "the Son of Man has come to SEEK and to SAVE that which was lost." (Lk 19:10+).
THOUGHT - The slave's physical healing of course is an illustration of Jesus' present power to save souls from a far more deadly illness of "infection" with the "sin virus," for unless this "infection" is cured by the Great Physician, the soul will die not only temporally and also eternally! And just as with the healing in this story, Jesus is absent in the flesh, but His Word still has the power to bring about a miraculous cure from sin! Jesus Who spoke the world into existence (Heb 11:3) needs only to speak a word and we are made whole in Him. Hallelujah! Thank You Jesus.
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Were these the same elders of the Jews who were trying to kill Him?
1. I don't know if these elders ever wanted to kill Jesus. There was a division among Jewish elders in various places concerning Jesus. This could be a contingent of elders that believed in Jesus. It could also be that they hated Jesus and was honoring the request of the centurion.
2. Why did the centurion not think he was worthy to have Jesus visit him?
The centurion obviously highly respected Jesus. He knew enough about the Jews to realize that it was not lawful for a Jew to enter the house of a gentile. So, he didn't want to make Jesus unclean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_the_centurion%27s_servant says:
ReplyDeleteLuke 7:2 and 7:10 refer to the person to be healed as doulos, unambiguously meaning "servant" but has the Centurion himself call him "pais" – which has a number of more ambiguous meanings including "child" (e.g., Matt 2:16, "son" (John 4:51) and, "servant" (Luke 15:26, Acts 4:25).
Daniel A. Helminiak, an American Catholic priest, theologian and author of "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality", states that the word pais, used for the servant, could have a sexual meaning.[9] Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew, also authors of various Christian books, further write that Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-lover", and that the centurion, therefore, did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear perhaps that the boy would be enamoured of Jesus instead. The Roman military historian D.B. Saddington writes that while he does not exclude the possibility, the evidence the two put forward supports "neither of these interpretations".[10]
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/did-jesus-heal-the-centurions-gay-lover/
ReplyDeleteThe word entimos occurs in four other places in the NT (Luke 14.8, Phil 2.29, 1 Peter 2.4, 6) as well as 28 times in the LXX, the Greek version of the OT which the NT frequently cites. These are much more important contexts for understanding the word—and of course there is no hint of sexual overtones in any of the other occurrences. It has been argued that the phrase entimos doulos (‘prized servant’) has the particular sexual meaning—but this phrase does not occur in Luke 7, and the word comes not from the centurion himself, but from Luke. It is worth noting that Matthew does not include the description in his (typically) more abbreviated account, so I wonder whether Luke is adding this term to bring out the poignancy of the story. Theissen is correct to point out that a sexual relationship is possible, but the good standing of the centurion with the local Jewish community makes it unlikely, and the vocabulary and shape of the story make it clear that, even if is the case, this aspect is of no interest to the gospel writers.
In closing, I would like to make three final observations. First, I keep being told that there are ‘good arguments’ for the Church to change its teaching on this issue. If there are, then where are they? Jeffrey John is a leading figure in this debate, so how come he offers us here such a poorly researched, implausible and incoherent case? Why is the case being made by SEC, a sister church in the Communion, so thin?
Secondly, what is Jeffrey John doing from the pulpit? He consistently makes the claim that texts ‘must mean this’ when they probably don’t, that Paul ‘certainly would have thought this’ when the majority think he wouldn’t, and that ‘this is what Jesus does’ when the gospels writers suggest the opposite. It is one thing to make a case, even a contentious one; it is quite another to disguise from your listeners that there is another possibility. It is a bit like saying ‘I am not interpreting the Bible; I am simply telling you what it says.’ It is a naked power play, and is wrong whoever does it.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/when-jesus-healed-a-same-sex-partner_b_1743947 says:
ReplyDeleteThe 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 pais, a word sometimes translated as “servant.”
But pais does not mean “servant.” It means “lover.” In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship. Now, this is not exactly a marriage of equals. An erastes-pais 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. 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; that word, and its many connotations, comes from our time, not that of Ancient Greece and Rome. This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today.
However, it is a same-sex relationship nonetheless. (It is also basically the same as the soldier/armor-bearer in the model of David and Jonathan, which I’ll explore in a future article.) And what is Jesus’s response? Does he spit in the centurion’s face for daring to suggest that he heal the soldier’s lover? Hardly. He recognizes the relationship and performs an act of grace.
Now, could pais really just mean “servant”? There are several reasons why this makes no sense. First, one would not expect a Roman centurion to intercede, let alone “beg” (parakaloon), on behalf of a mere servant or slave. Second, while Luke refers to the young man as a doulos (slave), the centurion himself specifically calls him a pais; this strongly suggests that the distinction is important. Third, we know that the erastes-pais intimate relationship was common practice among Roman soldiers, who were not allowed to take wives, and whose life was patterned on the Greek model of soldier-lovers. If pais just means “servant,” none of this makes any sense.
https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/44387 says:
ReplyDeleteThe gay revisionist interpretation of these stories of these Centurions is of course unfounded in the biblical text for numerous reasons. Some of these include:
(1) Though Plato and some others (among them Thucydides, Eupolis, Aeschines, Callimanchus, and Plutarch) in secular history may have used the term pais on a "few occasions" to refer to "beloved or same sex lover" (note that their uses do not "all" indicate a homosexual use) what is at stake here is how the Bible uses the term pais. In reviewing numerous Greek Lexicons (including, Bauer, Liddell & Scott, Mounce, Spicq, Thayer, etc.) and various concordances/dictionaries (including, Kittel, Srong's, Vine's, Young's, etc.) not a single one refers to a homosexual relationship. Of the 24 uses of pais in the Greek New Testament, unless these closely related stories are the exception, it is never used of a homosexual relationship!
(2) In Luke 7:2 the doctor uses doulos (slave) to refer to the Centurion's servant and in Luke 7:7 he uses the term pais (boy) to refer to the same person. So, the words are being used interchangeably. Compare Matthew 8:9 which uses doulo (servant). Clearly, the meaning then is a 'young servant.'
(3) Though related to # 1 above, we need to re-emphasize that there is no possible way pais could mean a homosexual in: Matthew 2:16; 12:18; 14:2; 17:18; 21:16; Luke 1:69; 8:51, 54, 9:42; John 4:51; and Acts 3:13, etc.
(4) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are Old Testament law regarding homosexuality. The Jewish elders in Luke 7:3-5 would not have supported a homosexual relationship. The elders of the Jews would not have been been pleading the Centurion's case had he been a homosexual. Rather they would have seen to his punishment!
(5) Jesus mere association with tax collectors and sinners does not suggest support for their behavior. Accepting someone where they are at in a moment of time for the sake of evangelizing them does not mean one condones the other's sinful behavior.
(6) Matthew, Luke, and John did not interpret Jesus' healing as support for homosexuality. Sex is not even a topic of concern by any of the writers inspired by the Holy Spirit.
(7) Last, but not least, the gay community seeks to prove too much. If we grant them their interpretation (which linguistically we can't), they must also take with that the Centurion's repentance ("I am not worthy to have you come under my roof," Luke 7:6; cf. Matt 8:8) and faith ("I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith," Luke 7:9; cf. Matt 8:9-12). In John 4:53, the Certurion and the whole household believed.
Repentance and faith (or belief) are flip sides of the same coin of conversion which comes after regeneration in the order of salvation. Though the Christian life is one of continual repentance and faith, repentance is a full and complete gift of God (2 Tim 2:24-26). It is total in scope (Isa 55:6-7; cf. Isa 40:3-4; Matt 9:12; Luke 13:5: Acts 2:38; 3:19). The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 15 says, "What is that turning from sin which is part of true repentance?" And the answer comes, "The turning from sin which is part of true repentance doth consist in two things. One, in a turning from all gross sins in regard of our course and conversation; two, in a turning from all other sins in regard of our hearts and affections." Robert Shaw in his exposition of the Confessions says, "True repentance includes grief, or deep contrition and godly sorrow for sin. . . . the sorrow of a true penitent is for sin as committed against God - as rebellion against his rightful authority - as a violation of his holy law, and as a most base, ungrateful return for all his goodness. Psa. 51:4."
My 2 cents on whether the servant was the centurion's lover:
ReplyDeleteThe point of this story was not whether the servant was the centurion's lover. In fact, it doesn't matter whether the servant was. Jesus would have acted the same way in either case. The point of the story was not about the centurion's overall character, but about his faith.
It doesn't matter what state a person is in, Jesus comes to that person, heals her/him and draws her/him in. We must have the same mindset. Having a discussion about what the Bible says about homosexuality is one thing. However, when we condemn and exclude gay people, we fall out of step with Christ's mission and attitude. This is such a serious matter, that it might even be salvific (re. Jesus sermons about judging others).
Still, it is worthwhile to understand the biblical text. Was the servant the centurion's lover? Although the answer doesn't matter, let's consider it. Let's examine the high regard of the Jewish leaders for the centurion. If the centurion had a "pais", would the Jewish leaders highly regard him?
Before President Trump came along, I would have said no. However, the high regard that many prominent Christians has for President Trump makes me realize that it's in people's nature to forgive a lot if somebody is on their "side". This centurion built their synagogue and donated a lot of money. I think it's possible that the Jewish leaders knew about the centurion's "pais" and still gave him high regard.
Probably even more probable is that the centurion didn't openly discuss his personal business.
Either way, there were various factions among the Jewish leaders. The Pharisees were pretty fanatical at the time, so I doubt they would have given any regard for the centurion, "pais" or not. However, the Sadducee faction of the Jewish leaders worked with Rome a lot, and this could be of that group. They would probably would have overlooked a lot.
Besides the "evidence" of the Jewish leaders, there's the evidence of how the same word is used elsewhere in the New Testament (and the Greek version of the Old Testament). There may be a point there, but I'm not sure it's conclusive at all. I really don't think that evidence is strong one way or another. There just is too many possibilities where it could be true either way. But, like I said above, I don't think it matters. It's not the point of the story. Even if someone tried to make it the point, is this centurion any different than the immoral woman who anointed Jesus' head (coming up later in this chapter)? I say, no.
One final point: If one were to attempt to make this passage out as pro-homosexual, it definitely is not. If the servant was a "pais", this story would be about an older man sleeping with a boy (who doesn't even have the power to give consent) - something that is considered a crime in our society. So to try to say that Jesus was pro-homosexual here, so every Christ follower should be too - this would be a very bad text to do that with. Unless you want to justify pedophilia.