SOULFULLY GAY
By JOE PEREZ
No film has ever depicted the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and John the Beloved with more beauty, sensitivity, or respect than The Passion of The Christ. John is the man tradition says is the "disciple that Jesus loved." He's also the man who Bible scholars say could have been Christ's gay lover.
Mel Gibson's controversial movie gives us the beloved disciple in the form of John, a handsome, goateed, raven-haired man who has a special, intimate place in Jesus' life.
From the garden of Gethsemane to the foot of the cross, John is rarely parted from his beloved.
John wept when Jesus was flogged. And when the body of the crucified Christ was taken down from the cross, John placed his hand upon his bloody thigh. As Jesus neared death, John stood with Jesus' mother and Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross.
"Woman, behold your son," said Jesus at the film's unforgettable climax, speaking to his mother in reference to John. And Jesus also bid the disciple: "Behold your mother."
The significance of this moment cannot be properly understood without realizing that Jesus is bidding his mother to adopt his lover as her own son, and bidding his lover to adopt Jesus' mother as his own.
So says Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., speaking of the Gospel of John in The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament. Jennings is a Methodist clergyman and professor of biblical and constructive theology at Chicago Theological Seminary. His acclaimed book, published by The Pilgrim Press in 2003, has been nominated for a Lambda Literary award.
Imagine that Jesus had said to his mother in reference to Mary Magdalene: "Woman, behold your daughter." It was the custom in those times that upon the death of a family member, the surviving family would adopted the daughter-in-law. Had Jesus spoken these words of a woman, few would doubt that she was being identified as his lover.
However, Christians have not previously recognized the plain meaning of Jesus' words about his beloved, because his lover was a man. Given their erotophobic, homophobic and heterosexist theological assumptions, conservative Christians have traditionally ignored or twisted the actual meaning of the Bible texts.
If Jesus and the beloved disciple were merely good pals and not lovers, then Jesus' words to his mother and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross don't make sense, argues Jennings. Why would the mother of a deceased man adopt a man's "close platonic friend" as her own son, and the son accept the mother, if they were not in a relationship surpassing mere friendship?
Recognizing that Jesus and the beloved disciple were lovers is the most literal and least tortured interpretation of the scene at the foot of the cross, says Jennings. And remember the scene in The Passion of The Christ when Jesus is seen washing John's feet?
Here's how the rest of the scene plays out in the Gospel of John: "one of the disciples of Jesus--the one Jesus loved--was reclining in Jesus' lap.... Falling back thus upon the chest of Jesus, he said to him..."
Couldn't Jesus and John just have been really good fishing buddies? Not according to the plain meaning of the Bible texts, says Jennings. He observes that the text marks one disciple as "more than a friend," and in a relationship distinct from that of the other disciples by virtue of its physical closeness and bodily intimacy.
The simplest and most probable explanation, Jennings argues convincingly, is that their relationship is one between lovers. We shouldn't expect the Bible to specify that the two actually had sex, any more than we would expect it to describe the intimate relations between Peter and his wife, or between Mary and Joseph.
Doubt that the relationship was erotic? Read Jennings's book. Or simply take this challenge. Go with twelve of your closest friends to dinner. Your best guy friend lies next to you during supper, snuggling and laying across your lap with his head upon your breast. And then strip naked and wash his feet. If you can honestly say that isn't the least bit homoerotic, dinner's on me.
The portrayal of Jesus and John in The Passion of The Christ is perhaps the most evocative cinematic depiction yet of Jesus' intimate life, although the homoeroticism is only implied. Thus the movie offers a revolutionary gay-affirming vision of the Passion, though ironically this couldn't have been the intention of the film's ultra-conservative producers.
Of course, Jesus of Nazareth didn't sport a rainbow-colored tunic. Jennings warns that we should be careful about misreading our own culturally conditioned assumptions about modern gay identities into the Bible. Yet he also insists we should also avoid reading heterosexism and homophobia into the Bible when it isn't there.
Is it "blaspheme" to talk of Jesus' sexuality in a new way? Traditionalists say so. Those traditionalists are the modern-day Pharisees. The Passion of The Christ showed them accusing Jesus himself of "blaspheme" and chanting, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Today, fear-mongers continue to attack all those who bring new ideas about God.
Jesus loved all his friends, but he loved one man in a special, physically intimate way. Gay men can deepen our spirituality by contemplating that Jesus' same-sex erotic love is worthy of the divine. Today we can hear Jesus speaking directly to us when he said to his lover and the other disciples, "Love one another, even as I have loved you."
"Soulfully Gay" is a bi-weekly column that explores spirituality and religion from a gay man’s perspective. Joe Perez has studied comparative religion at Harvard University and currently works as a writer in Seattle. Send feedback to joe@writingwolf.com. Visit Joe’s blog on spirituality at http://www.joe-perez.com/weblog.htm.
i dont think i agree with ur interpretation of Christ having something more than mere friendship with john the beloved.
i am a director of a firm, im my firm, one particular worker takes so much interest in pleasing me and trying to know what i like best. He is always by me, holding me and wanting to be wherever i am. I too discovered that i have a softspot for him. i now have preference to him.
Would you now say i have something more than this with him?
Posted by: felix | April 18, 2004 at 04:16 AM
Hard to say. If you die, will you tell your mother to adopt him as her own son, and tell him to take your mom as his own mother? That would be a good clue, for starters.
Posted by: Joe Perez | April 20, 2004 at 02:56 PM
Who Cares?!?!
Are we turning Jesus into the next juicy story for the national inquirer? Gay, straight, whatever...the man, had a message...that has nothing to do with any of this...the movie, focused on his suffering...thats not even Jesus' message...his message was about droppping the ego, showing compassion, making the world a better place...raising personal spiritual awareness...Can we focus on whats really important...instead of all this juicy, seedy stuff that is discussed...this book is being published in part because the author knows that sex sells...no matter gay, straight...as long as its naughty and controversial...people...please
Posted by: Jorge | April 26, 2004 at 11:22 PM
A lot of people care, Jorge. And some don't. Your view that Jesus' sexuality is irrelevant is most welcome. Many people will agree with you on that. Your intolerance towards the values and cares of others, and insinuation that Jennings's book of constructive theology is somehow morally equivalent to supermarket tabloids, however, is plainly offensive and wrong, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: Joe Perez | April 27, 2004 at 03:37 PM
So, in essence what this film is saying is that Jesus was an adulterer? Hmm, and yet The Bible (The Word of God) clearly states that Jesus was sin free. Or, do you not consider adultery a sin?
Posted by: John | June 08, 2004 at 10:54 AM
John - I'm not following you. The Passion of The Christ film? Adultery? You'll need to explain your question better. This essay is about Theordore Jennings's book and uses TPOTC movie as a reference point for discussing his argument that Jesus' primary affectional and physically intimate relationship was with a man (in other words, in today's language, he was gay). Jennings makes it very clear that how Jesus expressed his sexuality physically is unknown. I don't claim to know if or how Jesus and his beloved disciple consummated their love for each other. I think that's irrelevant.
Posted by: Joe Perez | June 09, 2004 at 01:21 PM
how can i subscribe to your news letter?
Posted by: pat garrison | October 21, 2006 at 04:22 PM
This is almost humorous. Look at Jesus teaching on marriage, he states that it is between man and woman. Homosexuality is listed throughout the bible as being sinful. Now you and Mr. Jennings are reading 2006-2007 social ideas into a 2000 year old story. I think most historians and scholars would agree that that is bad interpretation. Jesus asked Mary to take on John and John to take on Mary because Jesus was the oldest child and was responsible for her wellbeing. The reason he did not ask one of the other siblings is because they did not yet believe in him as the Messiah. I am sorry, but this article is wrong and sinful. More than anything THIS is blaspheme!
Posted by: Jonathan | January 13, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Jonathan: I usualy don't bother to respond to remarks such as these, but for what it's worth:
a) same-sex attraction and behavior is not a modern invention, but a universal condition including the days of the Bible,
b) attitudes about same-sex love in the Biblical days were complex and cannot be deduced from a handful of bible texts any more than you could deduce attitudes in modern America by looking at the Bible,
c) if you disagree with Prof. Jennings' interpretation, it would be helpful for you to actually provide a reasoned argument rather than simply confirming his own starting-point: that readers today invariable read their own theological assumptions (i.e., homophobia and erotophobia) into the Bible text, when doing so may be entirely unjustified.
Thank you for confirming Prof. Jennings' argument.
Posted by: joe perez | January 13, 2007 at 05:46 PM
wait..didnt God destroy two cities, soddom and gomorrah for homosexual sin? (Genesis 19:4-5.23-25)please, you people are just looking to make the Bible comfortable living. i do agree with pat garrison
Posted by: liz | January 27, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Actually Liz, God didn't.
Few if any biblical scholars will say that S&G's destruction was about homosexuality. Rather it was about violating the laws of hospitality. Rather than welcoming strangers into their town as guests, the people of S&G feared the strangers for being different and reacted violently (gang rape) to the outsiders.
Try reading God's dialogue with Abraham right before the S&G story. They're actually parts of a single story, though often read seperately by American readers. Also compare S&G to Judges 19, where virtually the same events happen with a town fearing strangers, but this time they rape and brutalize a concubine, and the punishment is Israel virtually annihalating the tribe of Benjamin.
In fact, I view both stories as powerful statements of Biblical support for queer people. We are often feared for being different and for being outsiders. We are often subjected to violence, be it physical or rhetorical, because we are different. But through it all, God is with us.
Posted by: John G. | January 29, 2007 at 03:25 AM
Joe, I think Jennings' caution not to read too much of contemporary sexual mores and values into John's Gospel story should be given more weight in this discussion. There are so many circumstantial and contextual factors to take into account in order to arrive at any firm conclusion about the nature of the special relationship of Jesus with John (not to mention characteristics of the audience to which this Gospel was addressed). Sure, what you or I could call a queer relationship might be close to what the author(s) had in mind, but the question then is how queer can "queer" be in the 1st or 2d century C.E.? Physically intimate (and certainly homoerotic, though not explicitly so or necessarly inclusive of homo- sex) relations between men in that part of the ancient world were common then as they are now. And it must be considered that the evident exclusivity of Jesus' and John's relationship, in all its details, might have been a way of "selling" John's gospel as the authorized account of God's word to his people, that they should "listen to him" (meaning John) as they would Jesus himself.
I for one am happy to have any sensual, erotic meaning read back into Jesus' life, times, and teaching, where it arguably belongs. Contemporary religious (and pious) sanitizing of the New Testament from all incarnational value is blatantly contradictory where The New Testament is accepted as being a continuation of the Hebrew Bible it followed.
Posted by: Tom G | January 29, 2007 at 02:16 PM
dear frens,
I am a gay man. I once had a dream not long ago. It was a war scene. I was naked and running being pursued by a group of soilders who want to kill me. I reached a dead end. I fell to the ground. I was so scared cause i knew the moment of death was right infront of me. Unknowingly for the 1st time in my life i called out to god.
I had no religious believe back then cause i always thought i was leading my life in sin being a gay man and everything. I had dare not face god or talk to him even in a prayer. I felt i was unworthy of his love.
From the place where i had fallen appeared the feet of a man.It was Chirst.Wearing a beautiful emerald green "robe",he walked to center, inbetween the soilders and me blocking their view of me. He said,
"turn back leave this boy alone".
The soilders replied,
"move out of the way or we will shoot you too".
The conversation went on for a couple of minutes after that. I could not recall what was said even after i had woken up from from the dream.
But in the end, Christ turn back to me(i was already on my feet by then)he told the soilders "
"go ahead and shoot then"
as he said that, he opened his emerald green robe,hugged me and wrapped my naked body and his in it, sheilding me. I heard the sound of the machine guns go off as we hugged eachother. i woke up from the dream.
If a straight man have had this dream, it would have made diffrent sense to him. But jesus appeared in my dream(a gay man) and hugged my naked body to his. What does this tell you?
Sex is a sin only when its use as power.Sez is divine when its just about giving. We do not know the word of god. We only know it from the word of another man. We take what suits us, what makes us feel good. We believe in what makes us feel good. "Believe" is a powerfull word. What you believe will be come your truth. So what is "truth"?
Religion is just a set of rules. Today religion teaches more about hate then love.Do this don't do that.i dont recall jesus ever teaching about "hate".Yet the word hate is used much in today's religiuos teaching."god hates homosexuals".
Look at it this way, Jesus becomes a even greater messiah with the above findings. He gave love, he saw no bodily needs for himself and just expressed his love. Be it with mary madlene or john. his act is godly. It's not a sin, and it's not the kind of sex as we know it today.
Divine love is divine. Be it homosexual or hestrosexual. Sex is a form of giving. Have anyone of you ever looked at it that way or are you ever able to give sex to someone that way? To be with someone with nothing to get sexually from him/her. But just with a heart to give. And making that your pleasure.
Jesus my savior would have been just that man. God made in flesh. Even if he did, its only our job to see the divine side of it.
but to label Jesus gay, that would be FALSE.
JESUS IS TO US WHAT WE NEED HIM TO BE. IF THAT IS NOT GODLY. I DONT KNOW IF YOU TRULY KNOW WHO GOD IS.
"The man wore only a linen cloth and begged to be with Jesus for the night".
Jesus who endured unimaginable pain for us. Was divine enough to consent to the man's need. That's not blaspheme. That's divine. No normal man would consent to it. So now you know where Jesus stands and where you do.
There's positive thinking in everything. With the rising of this new fidings we need to be positive in our thinking and find the divinity in all actions of The chirst.
That dream made me, Jesus, and god best frens.
Posted by: jordan | May 13, 2008 at 01:24 AM
praise His Holy Name. He has shown you the amazing grace, and as you point out, He revealed Himself to you in a way you could see and understand. yes, God is where you look for Him, anywhere and everywhere. and He is everything to everyone.
since all sex without the intention of procreation, be it hetero, homo or any other sexual orientation is essentially masterbation, the question becomes about what God means by placing such a strong desire in His creation to do so. is engaging in this act offensive to Him, or can it become a celebration of Him? is it a "natural" phenomenon that we need to supress in order to bring ourselves closer to the devine, or is it itself devinely inspired?
these are question i stuggle with myself, i have no answers to offer up. my suspicion, though, is that it's probably a matter of what God has put in one's own heart. the answer itself is not the truth, but a child of the Truth. it isn't relavtive as some might suggest but it just doesn't end up in some dogma, it's finalized in each and every heart God has made. i am given to believe that whatever is inspired by love cannot be sinful, perhaps misguided, but not sinful.
much love and hope, pj
Posted by: pennyjane | May 13, 2008 at 06:59 AM
your view is crap. you pervert the story of Jesus and stand under the judgment of God just as much as I do for my own sins.
Posted by: jason greene | October 30, 2008 at 09:31 AM
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (Amplified bible)
Jesus is the Son of God, the Way, the Truth and Life. No one comes to the Father without Him. He is the Word of God. (John 1) He is God. He is the sacrifical Lamb of God. That means He died for yours and my sins when He died on the cross. He has Risen and Lives today. He is the Resurrection and the Lover of your soul. He stands at the door of your heart and knocks. If anyone hears His voice, he will come in if you ask Him. There is no sin He wont forgive. His Spirit will reveal all truth. Ask Him into your heart and life today. You won't be sorry! I guarantee it!
Posted by: chanstar | September 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I think the more we divulge into the character of Jesus critically, more we will fall trapped into lot of logical and illogical discussion. The most important part of Jesus's life has always been to love the mankind. Even If we take him not God and treat him like Great Philosopher, we mustn't forget that he actually laid his life for humanity and his belief. I have read the Holy Bible numerous times, every time I read it, it actually motivates me and leads me to peace. The inner peace, well-being and compassion for all the mankind is the need of the hour. I do appreciate the honest effort on your part, I will still say, clearing the mind of all the doubts and bending toward the Holy feeling is what we would need to live and let others live
Posted by: saan | September 19, 2010 at 10:10 AM