I personally believe the gay "Christian" apologetics will be something the Bible believing Church will need to be prepared to contend with as our culture becomes more acceptable of homosexual behavior. The issue of homosexuality is only going to become more heated in our society during the years to come. The one thing currently going in favor for Christians, however, is that the revisionist arguments put forth by gay "Christians" in an attempt to twist the Bible to allow a homosexual lifestyle are not too sophisticated.
Their arguments are not built upon any meaningful exegesis of the biblical text, but around the re-defining of certain original language words and re-inserting them back into the narrative or doctrinal passage in order to make the text teach something utterly foreign to what the original writer intended. This "apologetic" allows the re-interpreter to infer certain points in the passage under scrutiny and draw conclusions that may never had been apart of what the original writer of scripture meant to convey.
One example of what I mean by re-interpreting passages is how gay apologists will claim Jesus never condemned the homosexual relationship of the centurion and his servant. Now, a normal person who just read what I wrote had to pause and say, "What homosexual relationship between a centurion and his servant?"
The reference is from Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 where a centurion comes to Jesus and asks for Him to heal his servant. Luke's gospel records that this was a servant dear to the centurion. In describing the servant of the centurion, Matthew employs the unique word pais. From these two bits of information, the gay apologists concludes that this was a centurion and his homosexual partner in view here, because a) the servant is dear to the centurion's heart, and b) the word pais to describe the servant is a special word of endearment.
Much of their argument hinged on part b), the use of pais to describe the servant. What are we to make of this? It is true that pais is an unusual word to use to describe a servant. Normally, other words like doulos are often used. But, are we to conclude the use of pais means a homosexual partner is being described in the gospel narrative?
Most commentators understand this word to be in reference to a child servant or a servant who is younger than an adult. In fact, the word "child" is the main definition given in the standard language dictionaries for pais. Additionally, Luke uses pais to describe Israel as God's servant in Luke 1:54 and David being the Lord's servant in Luke 1:69. Surely our homosexual apologists wouldn't conclude there was a homosexual relationship between the Lord and Israel or David?
A much better way to understand the centurion's servant is that he was perhaps an adopted son. Hence the reason he would be dear to the centurion's heart, as well as described as a unique and special servant. Even so, just because a centurion is described as having endearing feelings for a faithful servant to the point of humbling himself to beseech a miraculous Jewish man in the hopes this Jew will help him, a hated gentile and Roman occupier, does not mean he was a gay man looking to have his partner healed.
This is purely the figment of an over active homosexual apologetic imagination.
Please let me know about new Articles & Bible Studies from Fred's Bible Talk.
© Copyright 2002-2007 Fred Butler All Rights Reserved