Did Jesus Affirm Same Sex Relationships?

It’s shocking to me that when asked did Jesus affirm same sex relationships? people can be so bold to say Jesus affirmed, He agreed with it. I want to give you a Biblical breakdown based on something I saw recently on Twitter, or X as it’s called today. I’ll show you my twitter response at the end, because, let’s say, it was nothing like this longer response. But we’ll get to that. But before I get into the meat, I have three cautions.

One. I’m conscious of the topic today, so if you are reading this around children, you may want to read it later.

Two. For anyone who is in a same-sex relationship, or thinks they are Biblical, this is not an attack against you. I know it’s easy to feel attacked in a situation like this, but that is not my point. This is about good Bible study for Christians.

The better we become at understanding the Bible, the better we will be. So view this video based on substance, not on the position I’m coming from.

Three. This is something I don’t like to do and don’t do often, and that is asking you to like and share this post. It’s normal for this topic to get censored, held back or not encouraged.

The way to overcome that is by liking and sharing it with people.

Misusing The Bible On This Topic Is NOT New!

It’s sad people saying the Bible accepts same sex-relationships is nothing new. In previous years I’ve done videos on Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan.

So when I opened Twitter and saw this Tweet from Dr Kevin Young I got shocked, but not shocked. When you look at his Twitter Bio it says he’s a Pastor and author. This isn’t people sitting in the pews. People leading congregations are teaching this.

He outlined in a series of ten tweets, why and I quote “JESUS DIRECTLY AFFIRMED SAME-SEX LOVE.”

I don’t see this as a complete argument on Twitter, but well structured enough to engage with it. With more time & space, I assume he could add more. So I’m going to show you his ten tweets and show you why the Bible does not agree in any way.

This isn’t anything personal to Dr Young. This is about the kind of argument people from his position present.

So let’s look at the first of his ten tweets.

Did Jesus Affirm Same Sex Relationships? The Beginning

He begins with a big bold claim…

“JESUS DIRECTLY AFFIRMED SAME-SEX LOVE.”

This is false. Jesus did not affirm same-sex love in any way. If he did, this would contradict everything else in the Bible on this topic. Jesus didn’t do this. This will become more obvious as the article continues.

Then the tweet says,

“…But many English translations try to hide it”

This is a second big claim. This is not true also. To say someone is hiding something in this way, means you think they have negative intentions. But this also causes you to doubt what you believe.

As I continue, you will see nothing is hidden. Then he mentions the passage in question.

“In Matthew 8:13, a Roman Centurion pleads for Jesus to come heal a “young servant,” who is sick in his home.

But this was A GAY LOVER, not just a “young servant.”

The details are below”

The Context Of Matthew 8:5-13

Before we move to the next tweet, let me give you some context of the passage. But know my argument isn’t that the kind of relationships Dr Young is talking about didn’t happen in antiquity.

But this isn’t such a relationship in the Gospels. I’m going to explain the context of the passage now.

A Roman centurion has a young servant at home who works in his house, he gets sick. He sends for Jesus to come and heal him. Jesus says He will come. Then the centurion says, I’m not worthy for you to come to my house, say the word, and he will get healed.

Jesus marvels at the faith of this centurion and heals the servant. It’s a powerful story you can read about in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. I’ve covered it in different contexts over the years.

The 2nd Tweet

Now let’s move to the second tweet. Remember, Dr Young believes this shows “JESUS DIRECTLY AFFIRMED SAME-SEX LOVE.”

He says to start the second tweet,

“ROMAN CENTURIONS could not marry or have children until retirement, but here a Centurion is housing another male in his home!”

This is false.

The Bible doesn’t talk about centurions that much, so we cannot disprove this claim from the Bible. We can make some inferences, but this is the only thing we must go outside of the Bible to get a concrete answer for.

The moment you do this, it’s very quick for you to see this statement is false.

People on Twitter posted these links below the post…

Look at this example from the British Museum.

“Ordinary soldiers (below the rank of centurion) were not officially allowed to marry, but they still formed meaningful relationships with women and had families.”

Below the rank of centurion. This means these rules or customs would not apply to the centurion in this account in the Gospels. But it doesn’t say they didn’t get married. It says, they were not official marriages. Either way the opening statement to the argument is false.

And this is the foundation to Dr Young’s argument. Everything else falls down after it.

“The Bible uses the Greek word “Pais” to describe this second male.

“Pais” could mean BOY, SON, SLAVE, or SERVANT depending on context.”

This is true enough for me not to argue with.

Tweet #3 About Jesus Affirming Sam Sex Relationships

Tweet #3 talks about option 1.

“(OPTION 1 — “SON”)

In this text, PAIS cannot mean “son.”

Centurions cannot get married or have children, remember.

Also, “Pais” is not the Bible’s typical word for biological “son.”

“uìós” is the usual word for son, not “Pais,” so we can remove this option.”

I want to say first, I am not arguing this is the centurion’s son. But there’s two problems here. One big one, and one smaller one.

The big problem is, I have already shown centurions can marry and have families (even if illegal). This destroys this whole line of reasoning Dr Young wants to take people down.

The smaller problem is when he says, ““Pais” is not the Bible’s typical word for biological “son.””

That might be true, but standing on this point alone isn’t the strongest. It’s best to say, it could be his son. The option is still open, not closed.

But this point gets completely obliterated later. Wait and see.

Tweet #4 About Jesus Affirming Sam Sex Relationships

Tweet #4 has option number 2.

“(Option 2 — SERVANT)

PAIS cannot mean “servant” in this text.

Matthew, the New Testament, and Greek literature rarely use “Pais” for servant.

Matthew uses “Doülos” for servant/slave, even in these verses.

The only reason to use “servant” is to avoid the slave topic, or the gay one.”

Again, there’s a lot here which is problematic.

Matthew uses Pais in 8 total verses. 3 verses in this account.

3 times he uses it for children. And 2 times he uses it for servants.

If we remove today’s passage for now, based on probability, Matthew would likely be talking about a child. There would be no problem with this either.

He uses Pais for servants almost as much as he uses it for child. The next time Matthew uses Pais is in Matthew 12. This is when speaking about Jesus being the servant, the Pais of the Father.

Servant make sense there. Not because we’re against Jesus being the Son. But because of the Old Testament reference Matthew is using from Isaiah.

But we don’t turn around and say they are in a same-sex relationship. That would be absurd.

Every other time Matthew uses the word Pais, it never refers to a same-sex relationship. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament does.

The Doülos

He said,

“Matthew uses “Doülos” for servant/slave, even in these verses.”

His point is, if he was a servant he would have called him that and not Pais.

When the centurion says Doülos later, he could be speaking about the same boy, the Pais, or his servants in general.

What I mean is, the Pais can be the Doülos. Dr Young’s belief says it can’t, not the text. And the text is more important than Dr Young, not the other way round.

Matthew’s main use of this word in his Gospel is for a child. This suggests that is the more likely option. But if this passage in question is about a servant, he would use Pais about servants more than children.

So it makes sense to follow Matthew’s previous use of the word, and not deviate to another interpretation. An interpretation I’ll remind you which is contradictory to everything else in the Bible.

Are Translators Avoiding Things?

Then he says,

“The only reason to use “servant” is to avoid the slave topic, or the gay one.”

Not true.

Matthew uses this word for son too like I said. So because we know centurions could marry, there is no reason to avoid this.

Scholars are looking at the way Matthew uses this word and following suit.

Luke’s Gospel Destroys This Argument

The majority of use for this word Pais is by Luke, in his Gospel and Acts.

In his Gospel, Luke uses this word in 9 verses. 4 verses about servants, 4 verses about children. And the last time is in this verse about the centurion.

And this is significant. When you read Luke’s account, he uses the word “Doulos” many times. Doulos is the term for servant or slave.

Remember Dr Young said this when arguing this cannot be talking about a servant,

“Matthew uses “Doülos” for servant/slave, even in these verses.”

Contrary to Young’s argument, Luke does, and that obliterates the previous argument.

Luke’s known for using very precise language as a Dr. Luke makes it clear for us with his use of the word Doülos, instead of Pais. He uses it 3 times in the passage about the centurion’s servant.

This alone destroys his claim of the New Testament rarely using Pais for servant.

Because Luke uses the word Pais once here too. This shows us these words can get used in a interchangeable way. Or to add more depth.

It’s a servant, but he’s likely young. Or become like a son to him. This would be similar to Abraham & Eleazar in Genesis (Genesis 15 / 24).

All these things are the clear interpretation of the passage.

If you look over Dr Young’s argument about Matthew, it falls to pieces when you overlay Luke.

This becomes even clearer when you look at more key details shared by Dr Luke.

Glimmer Of Hope

Like I said earlier, I’m familiar with this passage. I was happy too see someone tweet, Luke says something the Jews said about the centurion. This shows there are still people on different platforms defending the Word of God.

The Jews encouraged Jesus to heal this gentile centurion because verse 4-5 says…

“And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.”

Please remember this when I move to the next tweet because it’s vital.

But if Young’s belief is right, devout Jews would rebuke the centurion for his lifestyle. They wouldn’t boast about him loving their nation, or building them a synagogue.

Dr Young even argues in an upcoming tweet, the crowds expected rebuke for the centurion.

This isn’t true, but that statement later contradicts the scenario before us.

The moment you bring Luke into the picture, Dr Young’s position gets torn to shreds.

I’m not trying to be mean. But I want to emphasize how bad this argument is.

Tweet #5 About Jesus Affirming Sam Sex Relationships

In his 5th tweet he mentions option 3.

“(Option 3 — SLAVE)

PAIS could mean “slave,” but it doesn’t fit the story.

Centurions were not known for being humble (at all),

and a Centurion (hated by the Jews) would not humble himself before a Jew just to heal a mere slave of his.

… unless it was a very SPECIAL slave!”

I cannot believe he said this. I don’t believe this was the centurion’s slave but we are seeing a common theme here.

Dr Young makes one bold claim after another, but they go too far, or are flat out wrong.

“PAIS could mean “slave,” but it doesn’t fit the story.”

He doesn’t give any Biblical reason for this.

Then says,

“Centurions were not known for being humble (at all),

and a Centurion (hated by the Jews) would not humble himself before a Jew just to heal a mere slave of his.

… unless it was a very SPECIAL slave!”

Saying centurions are not known for humility is relevant when we lack extra info about them. And even then is not something we can take as Gospel truth.

But Luke tells us he’s connected with the Jewish elders. The Jews co-sign for him. They say he was worthy of the miracle. He loved their nation and built them a synagogue.

This gentile centurion was not hated by the Jews, he was the opposite.

This is the very reason for the story. Someone who had legal power over Jesus, yielded to His Lordship and put faith in Him.

This is not about the “special slave”. This is about his faith in the King of the Jews.

(Think about that)

Let’s move to his 6th tweet…he now mentions option 4. His preferred option.

Tweet #6 About Jesus Affirming Sam Sex Relationships

“Option 4 — BOY)

PAIS must mean “BOY” or a “SPECIAL SLAVE”

“Pais” was regularly used in antiquity to describe one-half of a gay couple, sometimes ones that were pederastic in nature.

Both “boy” AND “slave” were euphemisms or terms of endearment/derision for:

GAY LOVERS”

And here lies the big problem. He says Pais gets used often to describe a person in this type of relationship, this means this has to be the same.

That’s wrong.

Before seeing how others use words and phrases, look at the Bible to see how these words and phrases get used.

For example the Greek word for scripture is Graphe. In antiquity this has a general meaning for writings.

But in the New Testament, like 99% of the time, it gets used in the context of the Word of God.

But imagine saying, the New Testament talks about normal writings as that’s how the word gets used often.

That would be wrong. It’s clear they are using it in a special sense, different to the custom.

This is the kind of thing Dr Young is trying to get you to believe.

I already said earlier. Pais gets used to describe Jesus and the Father. They are not gay lovers. It’s used of the nation of Israel and God, King David and God. They are not God’s gay lovers.

This argument results in absurdity if you follow it to its logical conclusion. There would be no way to distinguish between when this argument about Pais applies.

Now look at his 7th tweet…

Tweet #7 About Jesus Affirming Sam Sex Relationships

“JESUS SAYS HE WILL COME HEAL THE “YOUNG SLAVE” AT THE CENTURION’S HOUSE.

The Centurion freaks out!

Why? Because he knows Jesus will see that this isn’t just a “boy” or a “slave” but a GAY LOVER.

CENTURION: “No, No, No. Don’t go to my house… just speak and he will be healed!”

This is adding to God’s Word at its finest. The centurion did not freak out. Quite the opposite. He spoke in faith and was humble.

The very thing Dr Young said in a previous tweet centurions didn’t do.

Remember he said centurions weren’t humble?This is the danger of all cult groups and bad teaching. When you add to the Bible, there is no longer firm ground for you to stand on. You can turn any passage into what you want.

This is what you’re seeing happen here.

I cannot put faith in God’s Word if it’s as good as shifting sand. The sad thing is though, we live in a time where many are willing to live like that.

Did Jesus Affirm Same Sex Relationships? Tweet #8 & #9

Tweet #8 says…

“JESUS WAS SHOCKED AT THE CENTURION’s FAITH:

“I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel!” (v.10)

Instead of rebuking the Centurion, Jesus rebuked the crowd!!

Jesus says that a Gentile, in a QUESTIONABLE GAY RELATIONSHIP has more faith than all Israel.”

The difference is faith. The gentile has more faith than any in Israel.

A passage about Gentiles accepted by faith, gets stolen to fit a same-sex agenda when it’s nowhere in the text.

Tweet 9 says,

“THE CROWD THOUGHT JESUS WAS GOING TO PULL OUT LEVITICUS AND PUT THE CENTURION IN HIS PLACE Instead:

Jesus states that this practicing gay Centurion will sit at THE place of honor at the table in the coming Kingdom,

next to the greats of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob.

WOW!”

Wow indeed.

To please God, the Bible says you must have faith. But not blind faith. You must have Faith in who God is.

That faith comes from His Word, not imagining we can believe anything and God will reward us for it. That’s not how this works.

You don’t get to say “If I have faith in this relationship God doesn’t accept, He will accept me because I have faith”.

Look at his closing note and then I’ll show you my Twitter response to him.

Tweet #10

Tweet ten says,

“CLOSING NOTE:

There is, of course, enough reasonable doubt to warrant alternate understandings of this passage.

But taken in totality (word usage, story elements, and cultural considerations),

the normative and most logical understanding of this passage is a committed and loving gay relationship.

Other understandings that avoid these interpretations have agenda-based reasons for avoiding what the text and story make obvious.

Additionally, many commentaries downplay, avoid, even outright ignore these details.

You will find they are often written by those who prefer to avoid the implications, even as a possibility.

Having read and considered the opposing arguments,

I find them unconvincing at best and (occasionally) intentionally dishonest at worst.”

You can see why there is no reasonable doubt about this passage from this post. Using his argumentation reduces the Bible to contradiction and nonsense.

It doesn’t even hold to any mild level of scrutiny.

This was my tweet response.

“Any “Bible preacher” who believes Jesus affirmed any kind of same-sex relationship is lost. Or at best, GREATLY deceived.”

It was direct, and true. And considering I planned to write this article#, I didn’t feel the need to write a long text only a handful would read.

I pray this article blesses you, God bless and see you next time.

Prefer To Watch?