Matthew 8:5 When [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: 8:6 “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” 8:7 Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

‘Pais‘ (‘servant’, ‘boy’) here may mean one of three things:-

1. ‘Son’.  The Gk word ‘pais‘ can mean ‘son’ (and so it does in Jn 4:41).  However, this is not a common meaning, and it is only the putative parallel with the passage in John that would suggest it in this case.  Hagner supports this translation, although he thinks that ‘slave’ is ‘far from impossible’.  Bruner supports it also. The actual parallel in Luke 7 (which has ‘doulos‘, slave, in v2 and ‘pais‘, boy in v7) counts heavily against it.  Gagnon adopts this view, dismissing the identification of ‘doulos‘ as ‘the product of later Lukan redaction’.
2. ‘Servant’.   Elsewhere in the NT it usually means ‘servant, and (notwithstanding Gagnon’s view about later redaction) this is confirmed by Lk, who calls him a ‘doulos‘, servant.  France says that ‘we may reasonably suppose that the pais was a soldier detailed to act as personal aide to the commanding officer (a “batman” in the military sense, not that of popular fiction), though the term could also cover a domestic slave.’  Morris, Osborne, and others support this reading.
3. ‘Male lover’.  It has been argued that this ‘pais‘ was a servant who was the centurion’s male lover.  Luke makes it clear that he was an ‘honoured’ (entimos) servant.  In Matthew’s account the centurion distinguishes between this servant and his others (who are referred to by the usual term ‘doulos‘).  Moreover, the lengths to which the centurion went on behalf of his ‘pais‘ suggests an unusually close relationship with him.  Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., and Tat-Siong Benny Liew (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 123, No. 1 (2004), 467-94) offer support for this view.  However, their proposal relies on an assumption of a Roman Centurion in a Roman army, whereas Galilee was not occupied by the Romans at that time, and the Centurion would likely have been a non-Roman in the service of Herod Antipas.  (See D. B. Saddington, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (2006), 140-142).

Among the criticisms offered by Gagnon the following are especially pertinent:

1. 1. Sex with male slaves not a universal phenomenon.  In Luke’s account the centurion is portrayed as ‘a paradigmatic “God-fearer.”’
   2. Jesus would have been endorsing rape in this case. The sex in such a case would have been abusive and exploitative.  ‘By the reasoning of those who put a pro-homosex spin on the story, we would have to conclude that Jesus had no problem with this particularly exploitative form of same-sex intercourse inasmuch as he did not explicitly tell the centurion to stop doing it.’  (Preston Sprinkle makes the same point in his book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not just an Issue)
   3. Jesus’ fraternization with tax collectors and sexual sinners does not suggest support for their behavior. Jesus reached out to corrupt tax collectors.  ‘Yet he certainly was not commending their well-deserved reputation for collecting more taxes from their own people than they had a right to collect.’  He also reached out to sexual sinners, ‘yet, given his clear statements on divorce/remarriage, he certainly was not condoning their sexual activity. Why should we conclude that Jesus’ silence about the centurion’s sexual life communicates approval?’
   4. The Jewish elders in Luke 7 could not have supported a homosexual relationship. Luke adds the motif that Jewish elders interceded on the centurion’s behalf (7:3-5). Should we argue that these Jewish elders had no problem with same-sex intercourse, when every piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior?  ‘

Conclusion: it is indisputable that this centurion was very fond of his ‘pais‘/’doulos‘.  In view of the additional information given by Luke, it is likely that he was the Centurion’s servant, rather than son.  However, it is going well beyond anything the text says to assert, or even suggest, a homosexual relationship.

Nick Cady, while affirming the general approach outlined above, asks if Jesus would have healed gay person.  He answers, quite properly, in the affirmative:

‘Here’s why I say this: because Jesus’ healing of people never hinged on, or depended on, their level of personal righteousness. When Jesus healed the man born blind, he never brought up that man’s struggle with bitterness, greed, or envy. When Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, he never brought up that man’s struggle with lust. Healing is an act of grace, and grace – by definition – is not something that is earned or merited, it is a gift from a God who gives to undeserving recipients.’

We might conjecture, however, that our Lord, in sending the Centurian on his way, might have added, “You may go, but stop sinning.” (See Jn 8).