Luke 7:2-3 A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave.

(See also: 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.”)

There are two elements in this account that have suggested to some that the person healed by Jesus was the centurion’s male lover.  One concerns the word ‘pais‘, which is variously translated ‘servant’, ‘child’, or ‘boy’, and which is understood sometimes to refer to a young boy in a pederastic same-sex relationship with and older male.  I have discussed this topic elsewhere, and won’t pursue it here.

Another element in this account that seems to some to indicated that a same-sex relationship was involved is there description of the ‘slave’ as ‘highly regarded’.  The underlying word is ‘entimos‘ (‘dear’).

Further: Christopher B. Zeichmann states that ‘there was a pervasive culture of homoeroticism in the Roman military’:

‘Roman legionaries were prohibited from marrying while serving, and same-sex intercourse between two male Roman citizens (and thus between legionaries) was criminal, so soldiers commonly found liaisons among civilians living in or near their garrison. Evidence for homoeroticism in the military abounds. For instance, the playwright Plautus depicts characters teasing Harpax, an officer’s slave, for sleeping with his master: “When the soldier went to keep watch at night and you were going with him, did his sword fit into your sheath?” (Pseudolus 1180–1181). Or one might consider a male brothel that seems to have been identified near the Roman fortress at Vindolanda.’

Zeichmann remarks that the view one takes of this passage says a lot about the presuppositions of the interpreter:

‘Some recent interpreters sought to legitimize gay marriage by making the relationship between the centurion and his pais resemble that of a marriage—a lifelong, monogamous commitment between two peers.

‘Others sought to validate the presence of queer people in the military by appealing to the centurion as an exemplary queer military officer (one is reminded of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).

‘Conversely, those who reject the homoerotic interpretation of this story often do so in ways that resemble arguments against same-sex marriage, appealing to the “biblical” values of Jews and Christians against “secular” sexual ideologies of Roman gentiles.’

(Paragraphing added)

Zeichmann concludes:

‘The debate over whether there is something romantic or sexual in this story is quite obviously more about sexual politics today, divorced from the social and cultural context of first-century Palestine. It often seems interpreters assume they already know without bothering to investigate a variety of issues: evidence of homoeroticism among first-century Jews, the meaning of the words pais and entimos, Jewish perceptions of gentile sexuality, what exactly homosexual relationships entailed in ancient Rome, among many other issues.’

No doubt, there is some truth in this.  Therefore, it behoves the interpreter to pay attention to what the text does and doesn’t say, and, as far as possible, set personal preferences and prejdices aside.

So here goes.

Jeffrey John (Dean of St Alban’s) claims that this description would have been understood by any first-century Jew to mean that the slave was the centurion’s male lover.

But the evidence points, not towards, but away from, this interpretation.

For one thing, it is not at all clear that sexual relations between a Roman soldier and another adult male would have been countenanced at the time.  The evidence for such relationships between a soldier and a boy (slave) is scarce.  And, in any case, this incident took place in Galilee, not in Judea; not in Roman-occupied territory.  The centurion would have been a Gentile, but not a Roman.

For another thing, it is not reasonable to suppose that the Jews of the time (with whom the centurion was in good standing) would have been willing to ‘turn a blind eye’ to such a relationship, if that is what they understood it to be.

For yet another thing, the word ‘entimos‘ occurs in four other places in the NT (Luke 14.8, Phil 2.29, 1 Peter 2.4, 6), as well as over two dozen places in the LXX.  There is no hint of sexual (let alone homosexual) overtones in any of these passages.

Finally: the sexual behaviour of the centurion is of no interest to the Gospel writers.  Matthew does not even mention the word in question, and both he and Luke bring out something completely different – the centurion’s faith (see esp. Mt 8:10-12).

See this discussion by Ian Paul.