Nigeria, Same-Sex Marriage And Jesus Christ -By Albert Afeso Akanbi

On January 7, 2014 Dr Ebele Goodluck Jonathan, President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed force of the Federal Republic of Nigeria signed the Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2013 into law. His Excellency went ahead to give assent to the Act that made the bill into law despite protests from some western powers. For those who may not understand, the signing of this bill into law means homosexuals in Nigeria will now risk a 14-year jail term if they do not retrace their steps and renounce their sexual orientation or if they engage in Same-Sex Marriage or relationships. The bill also prescribes that any person who operates or participates in the activities of any gay club, societies and or organizations whether directly or indirectly will earn for himself or herself a 10-year imprisonment. Those who administer, witness, abet or aid the solemnization of a Same-Sex Marriage are also going to bag a 10-year jail term and so on. I believe in summary this is what this bill is all about.

A lot of ink has been spilt on paper regarding the question of homosexuality; its definition, why it should be or why it should not be prohibited, what the Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender (LGBT) community represents, discrimination against and oppression of those who are homosexually inclined and so on. For this reason, I will not dwell on the subject matter of what homosexuality is in this article. However, I am going to look at this subject from an entirely different perspective, which is, what Jesus’ stance on the matter may be! Just as I believe that everybody has a right to make their opinion on this matter known so also I am certain that most of the people who have spoken or written about this topic are moved by some genuine concern. So am I. However, let me make it clear here that homosexuality is just a type of the over 20 sexual orientations that people exhibit. As a matter of fact, in my own opinion, compared to other types of sexual orientations, homosexuality is a trifling yet responsible sexual orientation that should not have generated so much argument as it has done. I do not see any need for the entire buzz about it to the extent that it will warrant the Senate to abandon other pressing matters of national relevance and then begin to spend precious time in passing a bill that even the president will need to assent to. If we are this repulsed by homosexuality, how about pedophilia which is a sexual orientation where an adult engages in sex with a child or necrophilia which is sex with the dead? How about fetishism which is sex with non-living object belonging to someone one admires or coprophilia which is a sexual orientation where one engages in sex with the faeces of someone that that person admires yet cannot approach, or Urophilia and Bestiality which is sex with the urine of a person one has a crush for and sex with an animal respectively. These are just a few of the sexual inclinations that most humans exhibits which time and space will not let me do justice to in this article, no one seem to be bothered about them. So, what is the pandemonium about, about an adult having consensual sex with another adult of the same sex, which by the way is more honourable when compared to some other types of sexual behaviours in my own thinking? If we call for the heads of homosexuals because they engage in consensual sex with each other, what would we do to those having sex with the dead bodies?

At this point, I think it is best I make some clarifications and at the same time state in clear terms what my stance is on this matter before I proceed with my write-up. First, I am not a homosexual neither did I choose to write this article for anyone or group of people. I decided to write this article because of the clear conviction that I have which is, we do not as a people need such a bill as the one His Excellency signed into law at this time, for a number of reasons I cannot begin to enumerate here. Secondly and sadly so, the reaction of Nigerians that greeted the president’s assent to this bill mirrors the non-acceptance of homosexuality and the mind-set of majority of Nigerians on this issue. Thirdly, debates on this subject matter have been on for a while and I believe if a referendum were to be organized in Nigeria today, homosexuals will find as they may already now know, that they are in the minority in this country. Fourthly, the western world should recognize that majority of Nigerians find homosexuality offensive and would rather not talk about it (even though the practice is clearly on the rise here) and therefore should not bully us into a position that may create certain difficulties for us. At least the west of all should know that in a democracy, the MINORITY will have their SAY while the MAJORITY will have their WAY and as such should not try to force the hand of the Nigerian government on this matter by way of threats. Fifthly, whatever any two consenting adults do with their genitals behind closed doors and in the privacy of their rooms shouldn’t be anyone’s business let alone that of the government. If two adults decides to take their love for each other further by deciding to solemnize it in marriage, I think they should be allowed to so do and I do not see how that will change anything? How does that affect the economy especially if these adults discharge their duties to society with utmost responsibility and patriotism? Why should any government imprison anyone because of who he chooses to love or want to spend the rest of his or her life with? Isn’t this tantamount to sending a child to jail because he or she is a Leftist? It is my believe that in this life, just as we have the hunger for food and thirst for water so also we possess the urge for sex. Now, if Mr A decides to satisfy his thirst for water with a soft drink and Mr B decides he will satisfy his with a glass of water, what or who gives Mr B the right to condemn Mr A for his choice of what he chooses to use in the satisfaction of his thirst? The same thing applies to sex in my thinking. Who has a right to decide which sexual orientation is right or wrong? Who has the right to decided what should be the model in matters of one’s sexual orientation and feelings? This is my take on the matter. Now let me explain why I hold this view.

In cultures influenced by the Abrahamic religions like our own, the law and religion established homosexuality as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. Still, history is full of great men who have influenced civilization from Alexander the Great to Socrates, from Lord Byron to Edward II, Hadrian and so on who have had terms such as homosexual or bisexual applied to them. Isn’t this a classic example of society lying to itself? Strong evidences exist today to support the fact that homosexual behaviour has its roots in the human genes. For this reason, I will not go into the debate of whether or not homosexuality is biological in this article. That will be a subject for another day. This is because, I strongly believe homosexuality can be explained biologically. By the way, why would someone risk everything to be with ‘someone that he or she loves’ if this behaviour is just something learned and can actually be changed? And for those who argue that homosexuality is strange to African culture, there are reasons to believe that, the first record of a possible homosexual couple in history occurred in Africa. In a phenomenon commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an ancient Egyptian male couple who lived around 2400 BCE, this fact can clearly be seen. The pair is portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned “long term, erotic relationships” called motsoalle. E. E Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande Warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands and so on. The list is inexhaustible and as such I will not dwell on all that. My focus in this article is religion! Christianity! The Holy Bible! Although mainstream religion and religious men tends to hold a negative view of homosexuality, which is expected by the way, my focus in this article will be, what was Jesus’ view on the subject matter while he was on earth? This is because majority of Nigerians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I am sure only a few people know that the gospels actually portray Jesus as an eccentric. He didn’t turn prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, men and women that were considered dredge of society away nor did he condemn them. So, did he condemn homosexuals? I will try to gauge Jesus’s viewpoint on the matter with a few passages of the Bible.

Now, from our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so. He believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be healed. Marvelling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Now, like most stories in the gospels, this is not just another miracle story. This is a unique story that deserves careful examination for a good number of reasons. In the original language, the Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is ‘pais’.

In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant for example one who was “his master’s male lover.” Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers. To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover may seem repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just a little above that of slave. Moreover, in Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus’ day. In that culture, if you were a homosexual man who wanted a male “spouse,” you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction which was purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose was often called a pais or a ‘body slave’, the word ‘boy’ in English offers a rough comparison. Like pais, the word boy can be used to refer to a male child. But in the slave south in the nineteenth century in the United States of America, boy was also often used to refer to male slaves. The term boy can also be used as a term of endearment. For example, Hummer’s father often refers to his mother as “his girl.” He doesn’t mean that she is a child, but rather that she is his “special one.” The term boy can be used in the same way, as in “my boy” or “my beau.” In ancient Greek, pais had a similar range of meanings. Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which meaning was intended. Some modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the Gospels could not possibly have used the term pais in the sense of male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to prejudice. We must let the Holy Bible the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination or conclusion. Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the Roman centurion’s male lover? Let’s look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s ‘entimos doulos’. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son or boy. Thus, Luke’s account rule out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honoured.” This was an “honoured slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover.

A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.

The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion. Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension. Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some type of life-threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumours of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only hope. As he made his way to Jesus, he probably worried about the possibility that Jesus, like other Jewish rabbis, would take a dim view of his homosexual relationship. Perhaps he even considered lying. He could simply use the word doulos. That would have been accurate, as far as it went. But the centurion probably figured if Jesus was powerful enough to heal his lover, he was also powerful enough to see through any half-truths. So the centurion approaches Jesus and bows before him. “Rabbi, my . . . ,” the word gets caught in his throat. This is it — the moment of truth. Either Jesus will turn away in disgust, or something wonderful will happen. So, the centurion clears his throat and speaks again. “Rabbi, my pais — yes, my pais lies at home sick unto death.” Then he pauses and waits for a second that must have seemed like an eternity. The crowd of good, God-fearing people surrounding Jesus probably became tense. This was like a homosexual man asking a pastor, prophet or a priest to heal his lover. What would Jesus do? Without hesitation, Jesus says, “Then I will come and heal him.” It’s that simple! Jesus didn’t say, “Are you kidding me? I’m not going to heal your pais so you can go on living in sin!” Nor did he say, “Well, it shouldn’t surprise you that your pais is sick; this is God’s judgment on your relationship.” Instead, Jesus’ words are simple, clear, and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks of homosexual relationships. “I will come and heal him.” At this point, the centurion says there is no need for Jesus to travel to his home. He has faith that Jesus’ word is sufficient. Jesus then turns to the good people standing around him — those who were already dumbfounded that he was willing to heal this man’s male lover. To them, Jesus says in verse 10 of Matthew’s account, “I have not found faith this great anywhere in Israel.” In other words, Jesus holds up this gay centurion as an example of the type of faith others should aspire to. Jesus didn’t just tolerate this gay centurion. He said he was an example of faith — someone we all should strive to be like. Then, just so the good, God-fearing people wouldn’t miss his point, Jesus speaks again in verse 11: “I tell you, many will come from the east and the west [i.e. beyond the borders of Israel] to find a seat in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs [i.e., those considered likely to inherit heaven] will be thrown into outer darkness.” By this statement Jesus affirmed that many others like this gay centurion — those who come from beyond the assumed boundaries of God’s grace — are going to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. And he also warned that many who think themselves the most likely to be admitted will be left out. In this story, Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow. So consider carefully: Who is Lord — Jesus or cultural prejudice? Truth of the matter is, in as much as I cannot marry a man, I think when it comes to issues of Same-Sex marriage and relationships, a whole lot of Nigerians are hypocritical and misunderstand the Bible. Granted there is a verse in the Old Testament where Prophet Moses was quoted as saying it is wrong for a man to lay with a man and another in the New Testament where Saint Paul was quoted as saying the same thing. But then, what should we expect? These men lived at a time there was no Science and technology as we know it today. They saw the world differently and had beliefs about the universe, man and God which they took for granted. However, Jesus, an eccentric who saw thousands of years ahead of his contemporary saw things differently; the way they should be.

Another argument some people tend to fall back to in the Holy Bible is the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I make bold to say here that, these two ancient cities had nothing to do with how the Bible relates to homosexuality. Nothing at all. Yet, the story of those ancient cities is so salaciously interpreted that millions of people are convinced that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah due to their rampant “homosexual lifestyle.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. One of the things that make biblical interpretation so thorny is the difficulty of moving from one culture to another. If the Bible is read the same way one reads the newspaper, thinking that things then are just like things now, the first mistake is made and a false outcome is guaranteed in the interpretation of the stories that are read. This is especially true with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Let’s take a step back before we get into the text and see what cultural norms are operating here and to be able to put the story in perspective. The early second millennium BC was a particularly harsh time for desert dwellers. Travel in those days was complicated by bandits, harsh weather, and predatory animals. One literally put one’s life in jeopardy when traveling. That’s why traveling by caravan was so popular in those days. So to alleviate as much misery as possible, a “hospitality ethic” was born. The hospitality ethic, practiced throughout the Middle East, was to ensure the safe passage of strangers while they travelled. The way it worked is illustrated in the story just preceding that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In that story, Abraham bows down to strangers, showing greeting, not hostility; Abraham orders a fine dinner prepared for them, and then personally stands watch over them while they eat, as he is now responsible for their safety. This was not done because people in those days were especially nice to each other, or because there was an abundance of food to go around. No, it was to ensure that a city or tribe got a good reputation for hospitality so that its citizens, when traveling, would be accorded the same good treatment. If a city had a bad reputation, its travellers would not find a hospitable welcome away from home. It is in the context of the hospitality ethic that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah unfolds. Aliens come to the home of a resident alien, Lot. This is grounds for grave suspicion: “Could they be planning something against us?” The citizens demand to have the strangers brought out so they may “know” (yadha) them. Although yadha is sometimes used as a synonym for sexual intercourse, it mostly refers to knowledge of someone or something. The intent here is to interrogate these strangers. When Lot resisted, their efforts were thwarted and this convinced them that Lot was harbouring enemies. It is fairly obvious that the citizens’ intention was to rape the strangers, now deemed enemies. Not “to have sex with them,” but to rape them (take note that having sex with someone is not the same thing as raping that someone). Lot counters with an offer to allow the men to rape his daughters. Does it make any sense that if these men were out for homosexual sex, Lot would offer his daughters? Female virgins to homosexual men? Of course not. (One could digress here and point out that this isn’t what any of us would do today. Offering our daughters is not an act of hospitality we would consider appropriate as a host. That’s why we can’t assume that things then are like things now. Yet, Lot was obliged to make any concession to protect those who came into his home.) A point to note here is that, there is nothing consensual in either case — the strangers or the daughters. Male-on-male rape was a common aspect of ancient Near Eastern society regarding enemies. Rape was (and still is) an effort to humiliate and control, which was still prevalent amongst even the Roman army in later years. The usual practice after a war victory was to rape the remaining soldiers into submission as a show of dominance. If one visits most museums in the Ancient Near East today one would find in some of them display of artworks depicting this. There is this particular one where one will see depictions of a Greek soldier about to rape a defeated and horrified Persian. This aspect of rape is depicted by the men of Sodom saying, “This fellow”, that is Lot, “came here as an alien and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” They were going to rape Lot, too! We now know that rape has nothing to do with sex, except that it is done with the genitals. To say that rape is sex is to say that we kiss a drumstick while our lips assist in tearing meat from the bone. This is a story of rape, having nothing to do with sex, let alone homosexual sex. This story is concerned about abuse of the stranger, not about homosexuals. The sin here has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuality at all. As proof for this, let me quote the prophet Isaiah verbatim in the holy Bible Book of Isaiah 1:10, 17: ,The Book of Wisdom in the Roman Catholic Bible and a great church father as proof that the sins of the two ancient cities had nothing to do with homosexuality but inability to show hospitality to strangers.

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! … Learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow.

Book of Wisdom 19:13-18

On the sinners, punishment rained down not without violent thunder as early warning; and deservedly they suffered for their crimes, since they evinced such bitter hatred for strangers.

Church Father, Origen (185-254 C.E.):

“Hear this, you who close your homes to guests! Hear this, you who shun the traveller as an enemy! Lot lived among the Sodomites. We do not read of any other good deeds of his: He escaped the flames, escaped the fire, on account of one thing only. He opened his home to guests. The angels entered the hospitable household; the flames entered those homes closed to guests.”

(Homilia Vin Genesim)

Today, I feel very sad when I read in the papers and hear people make certain statements regarding homosexuality and homosexuals. It’s unfortunate. If anything, its goes a long way to prove that, as Nigerians we are not only very comfortable being hypocrites, we also like denying the truth; the obvious. I know a lot of people will consider this article a heresy and even call for my head and I doubt if this write up will even be published in the first place. But, this is the country we live in. A country where a so called Space Scientist was shocked when I told him that life may exist elsewhere apart from earth. How can that be? That’s impossible he barked. How can that not be? That’s very possible. I returned.  In a universe so old and vast beyond ordinary human comprehension, in a universe with over 250 billion galaxies all of which in turn contains over 250 billion suns (stars. Yes, our sun is a small star) in each of these galaxies, which in turn all have countless number of planet revolving round them, wouldn’t it be a waste of space if life exist only on earth? How can we maintain our belief in the uniqueness of life on earth alone in the face of such a vast number? If we say life exist only on earth, would it not be as foolish as saying if I empty a bag of beans on a fertile land, only one seed will grow? Yet my Space Scientist professor was shocked when I told him so. We live in a religious country where even a pastor and so called founder of a church was shocked when I told him Jesus was not addressed as Jesus by his contemporary in his day but as Yeshu or Yeshua or even Jehoshua during his lifetime. That the word ‘Jesus’ is actually a Greco-Roman corruption of the more appropriate Semitic Yeshua. He was so shocked that he called me a heretic. In a country where a group of people called for my head when I told them that there is the possibility that the universe is infinitely old and as such may not necessarily need a Creator God. How can a Creator create something that was not created or infinitely old so needed not to be created in the first place? I hardly see why majority of people in a country like ours will not be shocked or even feel repulse when homosexuality is discussed. Let us leave homosexuals alone to live free with who they choose to live with and focus on building our country and giving hope to the hopeless instead. This is my appeal to Mr President because; Sodomy was originally inhospitable behaviour toward strangers, the dreaded “other.” Today’s true Sodomites are those who remain inhospitable to and are calling for the heads of homosexuals.