Have you ever read the story of Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16? If not, it’s really quick...
Queer Theologians have identified Lydia as a woman with -- and I quote -- “great lesbian
credentials.” The basis for this recognition lies primarily in the reference to Lydia as a
seller of purple, a color with a long resonance for people within the gay and lesbian community.
The suggestion of this color scores an “immediate hit” followed by the overt lack of references to
any male relatives, how Lydia appears to be running her own business and household,
and how she goes out to join a group of women gathered at the riverside on the Sabbath. Oh,
and to seal the deal, based on the route described, this scene takes
place in the immediate vicinity of the Isle of Lesbos… in modern-day Greece.
As we’ve stated before, heterosexism takes place when audiences routinely assume
the heterosexuality of people unless they are specifically labeled otherwise,
when in reality the assumption has no real basis.
Picking up on these lesbian connections to Lydia is a form of gay sensibility.
And having a gay sensibility while reading scripture can bring the text to life
for a queer reader due to some correlation between it and their own queer experience,
such as spotting the color purple in Lydia’s story. Such encounters with the Bible aren’t
that much different than cruising encounters that can occur along a roadside, or in a bar,
on a hookup app where one finds that “one thing” that allows them to pursue that which catches
the eye. Whether you call it gay sensibility or gaydar, perception is the key to cruising.
With scripture, sometimes the gay sensibility evidence can be loose and flimsy, but still,
it's a welcome disruption to the heteronormative atmosphere of biblical interpretation.
By adopting a “cruising scripture” methodology the LGBT community can go beyond its defensive
strategy of always having to respond to homophobic distortions of biblical texts
to reveling in a hidden tradition of same-sex love that appears throughout the Bible.
As a lifelong Bible student, reading scripture through an alternate lens
has been a fascination of mine probably since the first time I saw Jesus Christ Superstar,
a rock opera that examines the final days of Jesus’ life through the eyes of Judas. The fact
that a film was able to get a devout Catholic like myself to feel compassion for someone like Judas,
the ultimate traitor, is definitely an example of queering the scripture that
really doesn’t deviate from the source material (although back then they probably didn’t sing).
So far in this course, we’ve already looked at queer interpretations of Ruth and Naomi,
as well as the Roman Centurion and his pias. By the time you’re watching this lecture, you
already read about Deborah and Jael, King Saul and David, and maybe even Mary and Martha depending
on whether or not I assigned them (because I kind of find their argument a little lacking).
There are certainly others that you can explore on your own including Abraham and Lot,
Isaac, Jacob always hanging out in the tents, and definitely Joseph and his fabulous
rainbow-colored coat – which we will examine in a different lesson, I promise you.
But today, I’d like to focus on the two most apparent same-sex love stories of the Bible,
David and Jonathan…. And their New Testament parallel -- Jesus and his beloved disciple.
In the first book of Samuel, immediately following David’s victory over Goliath,
one of King Saul’s sons Jonathan becomes quite taken by the harp-playing shepherd boy, with the
scripture indicating that “The soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David” 18:1. Saul’s son
forms a covenant with David that is affirmed three times, with chapter 23 adding that it
was made before the Lord. Jonathan then takes off his clothes and hands them to David. In so doing,
Jonathan removes the signs of his authority and manhood and strips in a submissive manner.
King Saul quickly becomes jealous of David’s success in battle and his popularity with the
crowds and comes to view him as a political threat in whom he attempts to have killed. Jonathan
protects David from his father’s murderous passion by helping him escape, but not before meeting in
private to express his undying love for him. Some have pointed out that the relationship between
the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships found
in the Hebrew Scriptures. When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace
in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase that normally refers to romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the
passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to one
another, with Jonathan even willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.
And believe me his father notices! The night Jonathan helps David escape, Saul calls him out:
“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! (Because I’m sure that’s the literal translation,
right?) Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame
of your mother’s nakedness?’ The last time we explored shame and nakedness in the bible was
in Genesis 3 where Augustine claimed a “sexual sin” took place, which gives the impression
that maybe Saul noticed something questionable in Jonathan and David’s relationship, right?
The morning after that awkward dinner conversation Jonathan meets up with
David and waits until they are alone before they kiss and cry together.
And after Saul and Jonathan perish in a battle against the Philistines,
David sings a psalm of lament for both Saul and Jonathan, referring to both men as “beloved and
lovely” (2 Sam 1:23a), but with a greater emphasis placed on the love for Jonathan by saying:
“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Sam 1:26).”
David articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares
with women. And David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan's sister Michal, but the
Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loved David). And then
once more David demonstrates his love for Jonathan by taking in Jonathan’s orphaned son (2 Sam 9:7).
(There’s definitely something going on between those two! And I want you to
remember this act of “adoption” because we’re going to revisit it again in a few minutes.)
Moving on…. In the New Testament Jesus is understood to be “the son
of David” a title that reflects both his ancestry to King David,
but also a label of Messianic authority. Now you’ll see that just as King David ultimately
had a male beloved that he kept secret, so too the Gospel of John paints a portrait of this Son
of David having likewise with the ambiguously nicknamed, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
The first time the audience meets “this beloved disciple” is at the Last Supper dinner and
discourse, which makes up 20 percent of John’s Gospel. The theme of this section is love
and sacrifice. And it’s within this context Jesus’ beloved disciple is introduced as being in
greatest proximity to the lord. The normal posture for dining together among friends in antiquity
was that of reclining on mats or pillows. Thus all the disciples are lying about in this way.
But the beloved is lying in Jesus' lap, snuggled up to Jesus. That disciple leans forward to hear
Peter’s question and then falls back (onto the chest of Jesus) to relay that question.
The text depicts the relationship of love in terms of physical closeness and will be
recalled in the final scene of the gospel when the Beloved is pointed out as the one
who had laid on Jesus' chest. (A little factoid that I guess John thought was noteworthy).
Now, why haven’t we heard of this person before the Last Supper?
Could it be that Jesus intentionally kept this man hidden from the crowds until this meal…
you know, the night he knew he was going to be betrayed and arrested, and then probably killed.
Could Jesus have felt that since he was aware that his time was running out, that there just wasn't
any point any longer in keeping this beloved a secret anymore, right? I can certainly see that.
The beloved disciple’s next appearance in John is at the foot of Jesus’ cross,
alongside a group of women including Mary Magdalene and Mary his mother. This beloved
disciple appears to be the only man present at the foot of the cross. At that moment, Jesus asks
his disciple to care for his mother and likewise asks his mother to treat his beloved as her son.
This shouldn't be read as simply the man adopting the mother in order to look after her and comfort
her in her grief. If anything, it's the other way around. The mother is being asked to be the
"mother" to the Beloved. The gospels, including John, speaks of Jesus as having brothers.
Mary has other sons so she has no need of any new relatives or kin. But this statement is not
about concern for his mother, but about his beloved. Like David took in Jonathan’s son
after his death, Jesus is asking his mother to take in this man. And treat him like a son, right?
I mentioned a few lessons back about how Jesus’ birth family may have had
difficulty accepting his ministry (or his alternative lifestyle).
Perhaps this “adoption” is the merging of the two families that Jesus always longed for.
The third time the beloved disciple is mentioned is with Peter in discovering the empty tomb
and then a fourth account at the end of the Gospel. Jesus tells Peter to care for his
sheep (21:15-20), while reserving for himself alone the care for his beloved (21:20-24). Or
in other words… “Peter, I want you to go out and take care of my church.
I alone will take care of this man." And the Gospel of John ends with this man. A
pretty important person, right, to never get a name!
Historians believe that the author of John’s gospel was a Jewish Christian himself,
writing around 95 AD to a particular group of Jewish-Christians who were excommunicated
from their synagogues. In other words, John wrote to a group of people who were
rejected by their church ... an experience that LGBT people can certainly relate to.
And given that John’s Jewish Christian audience knew the Hebrew Scriptures
story of David and Jonathan, I’d like to propose that the Gospel of John
presents Jesus not so much “the son of David” but a “new and improved
David.” One that gets to fulfill his messianic calling without any sort of sin
and finally gets to be with the one he loved in secret…. Because in the Roman Catholic tradition,
the name of this beloved disciple is John. John, of course, is short for…. Jonathan.
So whereas Old Testament David and Jonathan had a love that prematurely came to an end on
the battlefield, the love between Jesus as the new David and his beloved Jonathan transcends
the battlefield of death through resurrection. And what an interpretation would that be within
the larger message of John’s Gospel! That Queer love is an example of divine love.
And unlike David who then goes on to overcompensate his sexuality by marrying multiple
women and possessing numerous concubines, Jesus chose to remain monogamous with this one man.
There is very little written about this relationship, almost as if there was a conspiracy
of silence. This is something I can kind of relate to because when I was engaged to be married
to my husband, my mom would often introduce my fiancé to others as my ”friend”, never using the
label of fiancé, or boyfriend… and even today, I sometimes catch her not using the word “husband.”
Almost as if she's got this discomfort surrounding my sexuality. Could Evangelist John or the early
church have had similar discomfort with the notion of maybe Jesus having a boyfriend?
Yet the gospel makes clear that among so many to whom Jesus has strong personal ties,
there was one disciple who was Jesus’ beloved.
Now, there's a very brief story in the Gospel of Mark about an unnamed
follower who was sleeping naked in the Garden of Gethsemane not too far from where Jesus prayed.
51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. [The
soldiers] caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
Some scholars have suggested that this person may have been the same “beloved disciple”
that John refers to, as this would’ve been an hour or so after that last supper. But there’s
no way to know for sure based on only those two verses that the Gospel of Mark provides.
But there are some rejected versions of “the gospel of mark” that expand this naked man’s
story that was first discovered in 1958. A letter believed to have been written by Clement
of Alexandria was discovered by Morton Smith in a Greek Orthodox monastery in Mar-Saba situated
between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. The letter is addressed to someone named Theodore (Greek:
Θεόδωρος, Theodoros),[18] who seems to have asked if there is a gospel of Mark in which the words
"naked man with naked man" (Greek: γυμνὸς γυμνῷ, gymnos gymnō) and "other things" are present. Here
Clement confirms that Mark wrote a second, longer, mystic, and more spiritual version of his gospel,
and that this gospel was "very securely kept" in the Alexandrian church, but that it contained no
such words. Clement accuses a Gnostic teacher of having obtained a copy by deceit and polluting
it with “utterly shameless lies.” To refute the teachings of this gnostic sect known for their
sexual libertarianism and to show that these words were absent in the true Secret Gospel of Mark,
Clement quotes two passages from a longer version of the Gospel of Mark. The first, taking
place between Mark 10:34 and 35, showing many similarities with John’s raising of Lazarus...
And then a second excerpt would be inserted in Mark 10:46...
Since its publication in 1973, this letter’s authenticity and attribution
to Clement as well as the existence of a longer gospel of Mark has been debated.
But what we already know about Clement and the era in which he wrote,
homoerotic censorship wouldn’t have been completely off the table.
I do believe there probably is or at least was a longer cut to the Gospel of Mark somewhere out
there, which would fill in some narrative plot holes like the naked young man we see in the
garden and or the other young man who is wearing a white robe at Jesus’ empty tomb (because in Mark,
it says a “man” not “angels” informed the women of Jesus’ resurrection).
Usually, when there’s some random detail that goes unexplained, it’s because some sort of editing or
censorship took place. Similar to the unexplained introduction of “that disciple whom Jesus loved”
or what really happened to Noah in Genesis 9. (You gotta look that one up).
In conclusion, I am grateful and relieved that Jesus' sexuality is left ambiguous.
Grateful because it allows him to be a Christ that is universally relatable, whether you are
homosexual, heterosexual or anything in between. I am relieved because we've seen within
traditions like the Roman Catholics, that the maleness of Jesus has been
used as “evidence” to justify a misogynistic all-male clergy. We've also seen how Jesus'
celibacy has been used to promote an anti-sex attitude for anyone who’s not married.
If the Gospels would’ve flat out said that Jesus was only attracted to women,
you can be pretty damn sure that that little factoid would've been used against us.
It would have been the definitive nail in our queer coffins…
or should I say cross?