Posted on 04/08/2004 8:29:17 PM PDT by mhking
In an online response to my guest column last Friday, a reader flippantly remarked that The Daily Campus might next publish an article saying that Jesus was gay.
I would be lying if I said that the idea had not crossed my mind many times as I have tried to reconcile my own sexuality with the teachings of my faith.
But I have never really arrived at a conclusion.
So, this is for you, Will. Was Jesus gay? Many gays would love it if I said yes.
The truth is, I don’t think about Jesus as having a sexuality. As an orthodox, unmarried Jewish man, he was, at best, celibate.
Dr. Theodore W. Jennings Jr., a United Methodist minister, biblical scholar and professor of theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary has concluded that he probably was gay.
I mention this only to illustrate that serious scholars — indeed ordained ministers within our own university’s religious affiliation — who possess no apparent bias one way or the other, have concluded that he might have been gay.
The gospels do speak about the “disciple whom he loved.” But I have no interest, nor the space, in opening that can of worms here.
In terms of gender, we know that he was a man. But was Jesus gay?
I don’t know. He did possess many traits that today might be considered gay.
He was uniquely kind and compassionate. He was a pacifist. He was nurturing. He was fatherly, almost avuncular, but he was also what some might consider motherly.
He identified much more with his mother than his father.
He empathized with women more than any Jewish man did at that time.
He was liberal, probably the most liberal Jew of the period. Everything he did, everyone with whom he associated, and everything he said, went against the prevailing social and religious order.
What is important, but overlooked by fundamentalists, is that Jesus never spoke to the issue of homosexuality, even when presented with the opportunity.
Instead, fundamentalists base their condemnation of homosexuality on what Paul said, but even his views on the issue are open to interpretation.
Unfortunately, biblical translators have imposed their own biases in the words they chose when translating the Greek texts.
We can, however, infer Jesus’ attitude toward homosexuality from the story of the Roman centurion’s boy slave.
Having heard of the miracles that Jesus was performing, the centurion brought his pais (the Greek word used in the first century to refer to boy slaves with whom their masters engaged in pederasty) to Jesus to be healed.
Jesus would certainly have been aware of the practice, which the Romans had inherited from the Greeks.
He would have known about the relationship between the Roman and his slave, and still he chose to heal him, saying, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.
“I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 8:10-11, RSV).
Why did Jesus heal the homosexual slave of a Roman?
If homosexuality were so vile a notion to Jesus, why did he not speak to it?
Instead, he spoke only to the faith of the Roman soldier.
In effect, he was saying that all who believe, even practicing homosexuals, will be included in heaven, “while the sons of the Kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness…” (Matthew 8:12).
Detractors will disagree with my interpretation of this story; but as a linguist I know that language is the single most defining indicator of a culture.
Matthew would not have chosen the Greek word pais without knowing the connotation it carried.
In fact, Matthew even says “to whom he was precious,” referring to the love that the Roman felt for the young boy. Instead of pais, he could have chosen doulos (the Greek word for slave), but he did not.
Translators have chosen, unfortunately, to use the word slave or servant, thus depriving the modern reader of the true meaning of the text.
So, was Jesus gay? Honestly, my intention here has not been to persuade you one way or the other, but rather to encourage you to use the tools that universities such as SMU provide you and look for answers yourself on those things you find important.
Finally, if I may leave you with one caveat:
Before arriving at a conclusion on any translated work, the Bible included, consider the words used in the original texts and their meanings relative to the time and culture in which they were used.
Do not allow your reading to be colored by a translation that is corrupted by the bias(es) of the translator.
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
I'm sure he will be in due course.
Uhhh wasn't he of the Pharisitcal branch of Judiasm; the non-liberals of the day.
Understood. But your pathologically sick masochism has nothing to do with the profound agape demonstrated by Jesus. Go back to your public bathrooms, you sick ****, and bother us no more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
