IntroductionThis is a review of the Testimony of Scripture, the Divinely Inspired written Word of God. It first deals with the standard "proof verses", then move on to some less obvious but more important texts. It concludes by sketching out a positive Scriptural theology in order to give some hope for the future and provide what I hope will some common ground for positive engagement and rational dialogue.
I make no attempt here to treat either of the extra-scriptural
or of the Official Teaching of the contemporary
Church. These extremely important matters are discussed in subsequent
articles. It is necessary, of course, to bring all these strands together;
but I wish to address one identifiable task at a time, for the sake of
clear thinking. Before doing this, I think it opportune to comment on what
one might mean by Scriptural Inspiration and Inerrancy. I am not an evangelical
protestant. The Catholic Church has never seriously considered the idea
that every word of The Word should be taken at its simplest face value:
e.g. "the Brother's of Jesus",
"don't call anyone Father", "don't ever make an oath". Many things are
subject to understanding in a context that may be difficult for us to grasp.
For example try making head or tails of
God inspired Scripture so that it contains, correctly interpreted (by the Church!) exactly those truths which He wanted it to contain. It is not a source document on Mathematics (according to Leviticus, p = 3) or Astronomy (according to Chronicles, the Sun moves about the Earth) or any other Natural Science (according to Leviticus, bats are birds). It was written by human authors and editors and is as much (in one aspect) their word as it is (in another aspect) God's. It is necessarily encultured. It is written in human language with human references and context. It is often (but not always!) poetic and symbolic.
Doctrine authentically gathered from Scripture, by the Church and pre-eminently by the Magisterium, is certain and inerrant; but not every statement to be found in scripture is certainly true of itself. Details and particular facts are generally speaking not what the Divine Word is about. Matters such as whether the entire globe of the Earth was subject to the flood of Noah, the exact number of days Jesus fasted in the wilderness, or what gifts were brought by the Magi to the infant Christ should not be given the same significance or held to be certainly true in the way that the doctrine that God is Love or that friendship is the highest form of love must be held without any possibility of compromise. Personally, I strongly believe, that very many apparently historical assertions of both Old and New Testaments are to be taken at face value and accepted as true; but I entirely accept that - in some instances - it is legitimate to think otherwise.
"We have for too long been beguiled by what I would like to call a Koranic reading of scripture. It is at least coherent for a Muslim to claim that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed, and therefore that the Koran itself must be read as so dictated by an authority from above. The text becomes a sort of intermediary body between God and reader, such that the faithful are imprisoned under the fixed words of the text, which are imagined to be “just there”, inspired by God, and which thus absolve the reader from taking responsibility for the reading which he or she supplies. But it is not coherent for a Catholic to read Scripture in this way. The Catholic Church, heir to an extraordinarily rich tradition of creative Jewish textual reading, reads scripture Eucharistically, because for us the prime source of authority is not the text itself, but the crucified and living victim, alive in our midst, who is the living interpretative presence teaching us how to undo our violent and evil ways of relating to each other, and how together to enter into the way of penitence and peace. For us “The Word of God” refers in the first place to a living person, and only by analogy to the texts which bear witness to him."
The Proof TextsA good principle of Scriptural interpretation, that I learned from Evangelicals at Cambridge is that the importance of any matter can be judged, to first order, by the frequency with which it is dealt with in Holy Scripture. So, for example, Justice; Love; Integrity; Forgiveness, Faithfulness are all crucial, whereas the Immaculate Conception is not. That doesn't mean to say that the Immaculate Conception is not true, nor that it is unimportant; but just that it is a means to an end, whereas the earlier topics are not. They are the end of the Gospel... the Kingdom of God.
On this basis, the supposed wrongness of homosexual activity is clearly not crucial compared to many other ethical matters; such as using fair weights, caring for the widow and orphan, respecting the stranger in the land, having faith, burying the dead etc. etc. On the most extreme accounting, the Old Testament might be thought to deal with it twice. Jesus never mentions it at all, and of all the Apostles, only St. Paul seems to say anything on the subject.
Classical Jewish texts assert that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. One rabbinic tradition, says that the Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours", and understands that as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition adapts the Greek myth of Procrustes to Sodom, telling of the "bed" that guests were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 109a) provides a number of examples of what the crimes of Sodom were. Their sins had to do with cruelty and greed.
"The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them... They said: 'Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth? Come, let us abolish the practice of traveling in our land.'The Midrash compilation "Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer" offers a number of reasons why the Sodomites were considered evil.
While inhospitality has always been thought to be a sin, it is not generally viewed in Western culture as very serious, unlike almost any sexual sin. It was thought obvious that the supposed homosexual behaviour of the Sodomites was the cause of their demise. Contrariwise, hospitality was considered a major virtue in Biblical semitic culture; and still is, in the Middle East. The great Egyptian theologian Origen, wrote:
"Hear these words, you who close your houses to strangers; hear these words, you who avoid a guest as an enemy. Lot was living in Sodom. We do not read of other good deeds of his. The hospitality alone occuring at that time is mentioned. He escapes the flames, he escapes the conflagration for this reason alone: because he opened his house to strangers. Angels entered the hospitable house; fire entered the houses closed to strangers".Western culture, with its pagan Roman emphasis on "insular family values" knows nothing of this. Moreover, the two Angels who visited Sodom were a manifestation of God [Gen 18:1,16,20-22; 19:1]. Tradition has seen in the Angels an intimation of the persons of the Holy Trinity (it was a group of three Angels that visited Abraham; two of them proceeded to Sodom, while the third stayed behind to have an ethical debate with Abraham). Remember, Abraham was "God's friend", and merited such favourable condescension. Hence, the Sodomites intended (unknowingly) to violate God. Of course, by implication from the teaching of Jesus, to do ill to anyone is to do it to Him [Mat 25:31-46].
It should be mentioned in passing that the request of the Sodomites to "know" the Angels [Gen 19:5] does not necessarily have a sexual meaning. It might signifies something along the lines of "find out who they are: because we believe them to be some kind of alien deities, whose presence in our city offends our gods". There is no doubt a threat of violation, but not necessarily of a sexual nature. The fact that Lot responded by offering his two virgin daughters, for the Sodomites to "do with them as they pleased" does not necessarily mean that he was offering them for rape. They might have been offered to placate the supposed anger of the local deities, aroused by the invasion of their territory by the Angels, by becoming either "temple prostitutes" or human sacrifices; in both case virginity being of particular significance. [Thanks to George Hopper for this point.]
Lot's action shows how important he considered it was to defend the Angels from the assault planned by the Sodomites. Unhappily, it also shows that he thought of his daughters as dispensable commodities! The inhabitants of Sodom rejected the offer. It is unclear whether:
The Biblical contextThe RSV makes the Apostle Jude mention in passing that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust" [Jd 7]. This is simply a mistranslation. The Greek is much more specific. It describes Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities as behaving as (female) whores. It then says, of the cities thus personified (not their individual inhabitants), that they "went behind and sought out improper flesh". There is no use either of the term or idea "unnatural", nor of "lust". In the context, it is pretty clear that the meaning is that "they forsook the One True God, their rightful husband, in favour of idols, committing adultery by consorting improperly with alien gods". Proper flesh for a wife is her husband; improper flesh is her adulterous lover. [Thanks to George Hopper for this point.]
Ezekiel [Ezk 16:43-52] clearly and directly states that the sin of the Sodomites was "not to aid the poor and needy" out of their prosperity. This is in the midst of a grand diatribe against Jerusalem that uses the most extreme language; language which seems more appropriate, in our modern western ears, to a denunciation of lewd living rather than matters of clinical "justice and peace". However it is a common idiom of Scripture to compare idolatry with whoring. The Sodomites are also accused in this passage of "being hauty" and "doing abominable things"; which the context suggests means either idolatry or rampant social injustice, it is not clear which Ezekiel takes the greater exception to!
"Ezek. 16:50 must be taken in the context of all of Ezekiel 16. The entire chapter refers to abomination, and the abomination referred to is idolatry - the making of male images that Israel worshipped and made offerings to, including offerings of human lives. Ezekiel primarily mentions Sodom's neglect for the poor, but the 'abominable things' he mentions in the next verse, if not also referring to their neglect for the poor, must refer to the rest of the abominations referred to throughout this chapter." [The blog of Nathan Nelson]The books of Wisdom and Sirach reinforce this same interpretation of the Sodom story:
"For because they passed wisdom by, they not only were hindered from recognizing the good, but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly, so that their failures could never go unnoticed." [Wis 10:8]Crucially, Our Blessed Lord refers to Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of the first mission of the Twelve Apostles
"The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance." [Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5]The Book of Jubilees is a Second Century BC non-canonical Jewish text. It survives only in an Ethiopian version. It is the earliest extant sexual interpretation of the Sodom story.
"The Lord executed his judgements on Sodom and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the region of the Jordan, and he burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as [lo] I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh, and work uncleanness on the Earth. And in like manner, God will execute judgement on the places where they have done according to the uncleanness of the Sodomites, like unto the judgement of Sodom.It makes no reference to homosexuality, however. A few other references, plausibly from the same time frame exist:
"But ye shall not be so, my children, recognising in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made them all, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature. In like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, whom also the Lord cursed at the flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless.Again there is no reference to homosexuality. The phrase "changed the order of its nature" might mean anything. If the "Watchers" are "Sons of God" or the "Nephilim" [Gen 6:2-4] then the natural disorder indicated is decidedly heterosexual.
"Do ye also therefore, my children, flee ill-doing, envy, and hatred of brethren, and cleave to goodness and love. He that hath a pure mind in love, looketh not after a woman unto fornication; for he hath no defilement in his heart, because the Spirit of God resteth in him. For as the sun is not defiled by shining over dung and mire, but rather drieth up both and driveth away the ill smell: so also the pure mind, constrained among the defilements of the earth, rather edifieth, and itself suffereth no defilement.This text strongly suggests that the sexual impropriety of Sodom was heterosexual!
While the following text pretty obviously condemns pederasty and bestiality, it does not link them to Sodom, neither does it menton homosexuality:
"And in the seventh there shall be such pollution as I am not able to express, before the Lord and men, for they shall know it who do these things. Therefore shall they be in captivity and for a prey, and their land and their substance shall be destroyed. And in the fifth week they shall return into their desolate country, and shall renew the house of the Lord. And in the seventh week shall come the priests, worshippers of idols, contentious, lovers of money, proud, lawless, lascivious, abusers of children and beasts.The Apocalypse of Enoch is thought to be a late First Century AD Jewish text. It has no canonical standing. It survives only in a Slavonic version.
"This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God,In an alternative translation of these passages, one can find an identification of sodomy with anal intercourse. The more authoritative translation presented here contains no such suggestion. Note that pederasty is specified in the earlier verse and that any anal or "sodomitical" intercourse or "abominable lechery" might well be heterosexual!
Finally, a Second Century AD text which may be Christian influenced.
"The angel said to me, 'Look at the bottom to observe those whom you see at the lowest depth. They are the ones who have committed the sin of Sodom; truly, they were due a drastic punishment.'" [Testament of Isaac 5:27]Note that this gives no clue to the character of "the sin of Sodom", except that the author considers it to have been very serious.
It cannot be stressed too much that none of these texts have any canonical status whatsoever. They only serve to give some indication of contemporary thought. Moreover, it would be unwise to presume that they represent any kind of social consensus. They may be nothing more than the idiosyncratic views of their authors.
"Lut said to his people: 'What! do you commit an indecency which no one in the world has done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people!' The answer of his people was 'Turn them out of our town, surely they are a people who seek to purify.'" [Elevated Places: 80-82]
18:22, 20:13]. There are five points to be made.
occasions, he uses two words which don't appear in any other Greek
literature of the time. We have no way of knowing what the meaning of these
words is. One can transliterate them, of course, but to do so is dangerous.
To erect an ethic on such a flimsy foundation would be both grossly irresponsible
and rather silly! One word is "arsenokoitai".
Literally "arsenos" means male human being in Greek and "koitai"
bedders. The other word "malakoi"
seems to mean something like "softie".
"Arseno- is a prefix meaning 'male'. The 'male' can be either the subject or object of the action in question (gramatically as well as sexually). 'Koitis' is a feminine noun meaning 'bed'; in the singular it can be used either literally as a generic 'bed' or figuratively, as in 'The marriage bed is undefiled'. In the latter case, it connotes sexual monogamy, among other things. In the plural, 'koitai', it is used to mean 'bedding around' [cf Rom13:13], a more appropriate term for promiscuity than 'porneia', which properly mean prostitution.A correspondent has commented on this quote as follows:
"This is mistaken. The noun 'arsenokoites' is masculine, and its plural is 'arsenokoitai' (also masculine). It is wrong to say that the correct plural for masculine 'arsenokoites' is 'arsenokoitoi'. What probably confused Mr. Battell is that many feminine nouns (those ending in -a or -e) have a plural in -ai. On the other hand, many masculine nouns (those ending in -os) have a plural in -oi. But masculine 'agentive' nouns (sort of like English nouns ending in '-er' or '-or' like 'actor' or 'thinker') have a nominative singular in -es, and a nominative plural in -ai. There are hundreds of such words. One common biblical word following the same pattern, for example, is 'mathetes' ('disciple'). The plural is 'mathetai', which looks feminine to people who've only had a few weeks of Greek, but is really masculine. Or, from Classical Athens, there's 'dikastes', 'judge' the plural of which was 'dikastai', 'judges'." ["DP" private communication (2006)]I suspect that "DP" is correct in this matter.
Now one might imagine that arsenokoitis might mean "a man who has sex with a man", but on that basis lady-killer would mean "a murderer of one or more upper-class women"; but this English word doesn't mean that at all - not even remotely! To a "Trinity Man" such as myself, the english phrase "male bedder" clearly means "a man who works as a housekeeper". This is because "bedders" are (generally female) cleaners that serve residents of Cambridge Colleges. In fact, we have no idea what St Paul meant by the word "arsenokoitai" and have no obvious means of ever learning his meaning. Nevertheless, some people argue that:
According to Prof. Boswell:
"Jerome, following the older Latin translations, rendered the Greek... as 'masculorum concubitores', a vague phrase suggestive of multiple interpretations. Most obviously, it would be the active counterpart of the concubinus, a passive male concubine. This would correspond almost exactly to the Greek, and it is not unlikely that Jerome's chaste pen would have preferred the more clinical 'concubitor' to the vulgar 'exoletus'.""masculorum concubitores" literally means [those who are] of males (plural noun) the bedfellows.
According to a priest friend [28th Oct 2002]:
"'Masculorum concubitores' cannot ever mean 'male bedfellows' but only 'bedfellows of men'. The word concubitores is masculine, but masculine words also include the feminine. Mixed plurals are always masculine; only when all members of a group are female can a feminine plural be used (if one exists). Thus grammatically the bedfellows could theoretically be either, but it is quite clear from the context that 'bedfellows of males' means 'male bedfellows of males'."As for "softie", I ask you! Elsewhere in the scriptures it is used (ironically of St John the Baptist) to mean fops or dandies; those who "dress up in fine clothes" [Mat 11:8, and esp Lk 7:25] and the physically infirm [Mat 4:23, 9:35, 10:1]. Historically it has been understood to mean anything from "effeminate male" to "a person who masturbates", but could easily mean "those with no backbone". Note again the extreme danger of transliteration, if St Paul had been a Twentieth Century Englishman, and had written "those with no backbone" one shudders to think what he might be understood as meaning one or two thousand years later, when English was a lost language and no other instances of this phrase were known!
Instances of the use of malakoi in earlier secular literature are: Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51; Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488; Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato: Republic 556c. Here it can have sexual connotations, though not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. Of course there is no good reason to interpret St Paul's usage in terms of classical authors writing hundreds of years earlier while discounting the contemporary usage of Sts Matthew and Luke!
Typically this is understood to signify that one should follow the example of the Samaritan and do good to others. This is wrong! While it is true that one should be caring of those we meet who are in distress, this was not the message that Jesus intended to communicate in the parable. Re-read the passage carefully. You will see that the message was that: "you Jews (and now Catholics!) tend to think of those outside the fold as unpeople. This is both wrong and unwise. You will find that it is exactly those whom you culturally despise the most (e.g. Samaritans, Abyssinian Orthodox, Gipsies, Calvinists, Albanian Refugees, Black Lesbian Single Mothers) who will turn out to be your neighbours in the end. They will surprise you by their goodness and simple human decency. You must love them as yourselves, because they will prove to be your salvation; just as the despised Samaritan in the parable was the salvation of the dying Jew."
So now, here is the Romans text in its context. I have abbreviated it somewhat as indicated with "...", just to clarify the Apostle's train of thought. I have no intention to distort the passage, and suggest that you compare my RSV based text with whatever version you wish - preferably the Greek!
"For the wrath of God is revealed... against all... men who... suppress the truth... they are without excuse... claiming to be wise, they became fools, andIt is worth first comparing this text with a passage from the Deuterocanon:exchanged the glory of the Immortal God for images.They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, will, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, hauty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents... Therefore you have no excuse... whoever you are, when you judge another... you condemn yourself, because you... are doing the very same things!... God's kindness is meant to lead to your repentance, but by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day... when God's righteous judgement will be revealed... For God shows no partiality."Therefore, God gave these men up...exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator.
"For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life: for they did not exist from the beginning, nor will they last forever... For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favours, defiling of souls, sexual perversion, disorder in marriages, adultery and debauchery. For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil." [Wis 14:12-13, 23-27]Now here is my commentary, updated after reading an excellent exegesis by the evangelical web author Jeramy Townsley.
According to one academic commentator, there is a solid basis:
"... within Scripture, for the Church's teaching: the creation of man as male and female, meant to cooperate with God in giving life to new human persons; the fall and resulting concupiscence [Gen 1]; the judgments on homosexual behavior found in the Sodom and Gomorrah story [Gen 19], Lev 18:22 and 20:13, the teaching of Paul in 1Cor 6:9 and Rom 1:18-32, and finally the significance of 1Tim 1:10 (no. 6). It seems to me that the Letter offers a good presentation of the condemnation of homosexual behavior in Scripture, but obviously arguments based on Scripture are not very persuasive to persons who do not accept its authority." [Prof W.E May, "On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage", National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Aug 2004)]I will leave it to my readers to form their own judgement in this matter.
The "Good Stuff"There is plenty in the Bible about the excellence of same gender affection, love and commitment. Obviously, there is nothing clearly explicit about homo-gender genital activity (whereas there are a number condemnations of various types of hetero-gender genital activity); but to focus on acts out of context is to replace theology and ethics with physiology and plumbing, and pornographic physiology at that!
I contend that it is of paramount importance to the present study to reflect on what Scripture teaches about same gender affection, commitment and devotion; something that contemporary society and the Modern Church have little or nothing positive to say about. In particular, we will see that the official teaching of the Church castigates homo-gender love as inferior to hetero-gender love because it is inadequately "self giving" and does not feature sexual "complementarity".
"Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken." [Eccl 4:8-12]What an eloquent way of describing the need for intimate companionship! In fact, this very passage was used by a 19th century Eastern Orthodox saint who feared that his beloved would leave him [The life of Ss. Zosima and Basilisk, published by St. Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, CA].
Then there are three Old Testament stories.
We are told that "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"[1Sam 18:1 KJV]. This does not signify an entirely spiritual effect. The Hebrew concept of soul was not synonymous with "spirit". When Genesis tells of God forming Adam's body out of the dust of the earth, it says that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (in Hebrew, Greek and some other languages, the word for wind and breath and spirit are the same), "and man became a living soul" [Gen 2:7]. The "soul" in the Hebrew Bible is the whole life of the person: physical, mental and spiritual. Hence, when the soul of Jonathan was knit with that of David, it was not simply spiritual: it was physical as well. Jonathan loved David with his whole being: his living body and spirit.
Jonathan and David made a formal covenant [1Sam 18:3]. The Hebrew word used is the same as is used for the marriage covenant. To seal it, Jonathan took off all the items that he was wearing and gave them to David [1Sam 18:4]. From that day, David moved in with Jonathan [1Sam 18:2] (at the insistence of Jonathan's father, King Saul) and did not live at home with his parents anymore, indicative of the type of covenant they had made.
It didn't take long for King Saul later to become jealous of David's battle prowess. He then learned that one of his daughters, Michal, loved David. He decided to let her marry David, for the sole purpose of causing him to fall to his enemies [1 Sam 18:17,21]. When Saul offered David Michal as a wife, he remarked that once David married Michal, he would be the king's son-in-law "by the second" [Sam 18:21 Young's Literal Translation] or "in two thing" [Douay-Reims] or "through the second" [Complete Jewish Bible] or "a second time" [American Standard Version]. That is, he would be the king's son-in-law twice: through two of Saul's children (the RSV and KJV translations of this verse are inaccurate and misleading) which implies that Saul recognized David as being joined to his son Jonathan in a marriage covenant. This after we have been told that "Jonathan loved David as his own soul, and Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house" [1 Sam 18:1], which as I have already remarked, most naturally signifies David being appropriated as a "wife" for Jonathan by the King.
There is no clear statement that David and Jonathan were ever genitaly intimate (but see [1 Sam 20:41] "they kissed one another, and wept with one another until David exceeded". The Hebrew word here translated as "exceeded" is "gadal", which literally means "to magnify" or "to grow" or "to become great". This may well mean that David experienced sexual arousal and possibly orgasm) but no statement that they were not, either. Moreover, Jonathan's father, King Saul, seems to have thought that their relationship was unusual, to the extent that he finally decided that while it continued Jonathan would not "establish his kingdom" [1Sam 20:30-31].
When Jonathan died in battle, David wrote a song which expressed his love for the late Jonathan.
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee [Vulgate])" [2 Sam 1:26]When David referred to the love of women, he must have meant romanto-erotic love. It was considered highly improper for a man to have any type of non-familial relationship with a woman. David would not have had any intimate but non sexual relationships with "women" - the verse pretty clearly doesn't include David's mother or sisters in the category "women". He can only be referring to romantic feelings. David clearly preferred the love of Jonathan. Nowhere in scripture will you find David expressing such love for a woman. Although he married more than once, and fathered children, he never expressed such devotion for any of his wives. lesbians. Nevertheless, they relate to each other exactly as though they were. They are utterly devoted and inseparable. Ruth acts in an almost reckless manner, abandoning her country, her blood family and her religion for the sake of her friend. Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:
"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." [Ru 1:16-17 NIV]Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they
shall be one flesh." (KJV) To suggest that Ruth could have been more self giving towards Naomi, or that their relationship lacked something because it did not feature "sexual complementarity" would be absurd.
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" [NIV]Some commentators detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are "chesed v'rachamim". The most common translation of "chesed" is "mercy". "V'rachamim" is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple
meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and "engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
Luke tells us explicitly that the sick man was dear (or valuable!) to the officer. Matthew puts the words "in terrible distress" into the Centurion's mouth, and says he "beseeched" Jesus for help, which was readily offered. What is not apparent in any English translation that I know of (but very obvious in both the Greek original and in the Liturgical Latin - Jerome's Vulgate) is that two different words are used to describe the invalid. The first "pais" is comparable to the french word "garcon". It means anything from "boy" (its root meaning) to "servant" (as in either "waiter" or "house boy"). The second "doulos" is a word meaning servant (who might be a slave). The way it goes is this (I conflate Matthew and Luke)
In Greco-Roman culture it was common for a mature male to romantically pair-up with a younger man, his boy. This was seen (in common with other cultures, such as that of some contemporary African tribes) as of great benefit to the youthl; a means of learning what it was to be a man from an older and more experienced mentor (see Plato.) Homosexuality had been institutional and compulsory in Sparta and almost so in Athens. I cannot speak so authoritatively about Rome, but in any case the Centurion might well have been Greek! Plenty of non-ethnic Romans became citizens - the jew Saul of Tarsus for one! If the Centurion's undeniable affection and acute concern for his boy was exactly what it might seem to be: the distress of a lover when the beloved is in danger of death, then it is remarkable (if there was any immorality here) that Jesus commended the Centurion as having faith beyond all compare. It is also ironic that the Centurion's confession of faith has become a central part of the Roman Eucharistic Liturgy. I take great comfort and strength from this possibility.
"If the centurion and his slave were engaged in a homosexual relationship, then it was likely to have been of a particularly coercive and exploitative sort. Using Kristof's logic, we would have to suppose, then, that Jesus was in favor of coercing slaves to have sex with their masters and to feminize their appearance (up to and possibly including castration), inasmuch as Jesus did not speak explicitly against it.
human. Therefore, He must have had the same kind of feelings and affections
as you and I. Moreover, He must have had a sexuality
and a hence
sexual orientation. To say anything different would, even in the
absence of evidence, be to deny the doctrine of the
Incarnation and to take up a Docetist heterodoxy. In any case,
it is clear from the explicit testimony of Scripture that Jesus did experience
the emotions of compassion, anguish, love and despair in all their depth
Two people vie with each other in Scripture for the title of "Beloved of Jesus". Both are called so by Holy Writ. Both are men.
Everyone who has read St John's Gospel is familiar with the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This is generally taken to mean the Apostle John; but it doesn't matter who it was, really. I don't doubt but that Jesus loved all his disciples, and in fact loved everyone whom he met; even those whom he also described as "hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres". However, if one disciple is described as being "The One beloved by Jesus", this must mean apart from the norm, else it has no grammatical sense. "THE ONE disciple whom Jesus cared about JUST like all the REST" is a self contradiction. St Aelraed compares the relationship between Jesus and John with marriage.
At the Last Supper, we find [Jn 13:23] this disciple lying with his head near to or on Jesus' breast. It is regrettable that modern English translations typically obscure the clear meaning in the Greek. This is where one would expect to find the most intimate friend of the host of a Greek style meal. Read Plato's symposium (which is a description of a meal at which the diners discuss the meaning and excellence of love) for a wonderful insight into the dynamics of the Last Supper. Interestingly, there is a suggestion that Judas was lying in the position of "guest of honour", on Jesus' right.
The other contender is a little less obvious, especially in some modern translations. It is Lazarus. The shortest verse in the whole Bible [Jn 11:35] is one of the most important and well known. It is "Jesus wept". Our Lord is described as being "deeply moved in spirit and troubled" at the death of Lazarus in such a way that those who watched recognized that Jesus had a very special affection for Lazarus: "see how he loved him!" they remarked. In verse thirty-eight Jesus is, it seems, portrayed as groaning (as if from the pain of heart-break?) This all comes after the "bomb-shell verse" [Jn 11:3]. We are elsewhere told that Jesus loved Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Now the two sisters without affectation describe their brother as "The one whom" Jesus loves.
The fact that the infant church realized there was something very special about the relationship between Lazarus and Jesus is indicated by the following:
"Lazarus was compelled to seek refuge in Kition, Cyprus... Lazarus left his country when many Christians of Judea 'which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch' [Acts 11:19]... Here [Lazarus] was met by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey to Cyprus and according to tradition, he was ordained by them as the first Bishop of Kition. That's why all the episcopal thrones in the churches of Larnaca bear the icon of St. Lazarus instead of that of Christ, as is the custom in the Orthodox Church."
For what it's worth, I give below the fragment of the "Secret Gospel of Mark" which relates to this story:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me'. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich.It is manifest that Jesus, the Incarnate Word of God, had feelings of the deepest attachment and affection for both the Beloved Disciple and for Lazarus. This is undeniable. What one chooses to make of this fact is another matter. It is clearly heretical to deny that Jesus had human feelings or a sexuality. I contend that it does grave violence to Scripture to deny that the clearest examples that we have of Jesus' human affection and love are for his two male friends: John and Lazarus. Certainly, he is never portrayed as expressing similar feelings for any woman (even the Magdalene); though I do not necessarily believe that he didn't!
As an aside, I wish to comment briefly on the fragment of "Secret Mark":
Love, Sex and Friendship in ScriptureI shall now sketch out a number of Theories of Love.
In the writings of St Paul we find a theory which seems to consist of the unresolved juxtaposition of two ideas:
This is the tradition in which Jesus grew up. I think it is clear, from His strong positive teaching on and manifest commitment to Friendship as an ideal; and from His frequent criticism of the established conventions regarding Family and Marriage, that He strongly advocated it. In fact He took this Tradition to the extreme on the Cross. There He worked out in actions what He had taught in words; that friendship demands integrity, personal commitment and sacrifice: "Greater love has no Man than that He lays down His life for His friends." God's friendship for Man demanded no less than this. I further think that this is the teaching of the Apostle John, in his Epistles which are suffused with the importance of Love as intimate fellowship.
Finally, we have the Trinitarian Theory. This is compatible with the Companionship Theory but goes much deeper. In the Trinity, the Self Pride of the Father becomes substantially the Son and their intense joy in each other gives rise to Holy Spirit. The Father does not love the Son in order that the Spirit should proceed from their union. He simply cannot help Himself! The procession of the Spirit is ecstatic, bounding forth from a love that needs no justification in its delight, exuberance and intensity. Trinitarian Love does not have a purpose other than itself. God does not have any purpose except to delight in HimSelves. It is the intrinsic excellence, the super-abundant joy of mutual interpossession that inevitably floods over into first the Uncreated Spirit and finally the Created Cosmos. Love is the basis of existence. Everything that exists must be comprehended in terms of The Divine Love, not vice-versa.
|The fact that we experience a need for and value friendship
and love is, on the one hand, just an expression of our finitude and self-insufficiency;
and, on the other, a testament to our destiny to be caught up in the Divine
Life. In all things one thing should guide us. Love should guide us.
Love is God's meaning in all things.
"Everything comes forth out of love, everything is allowed to happen for the salvation of mankind. God does everthing only with this end in mind."Love casts out all fear. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love abides for ever. Let Love be our sole concern and all our doings will be Just. Let us work together from this day to bring the Kingdom of God, the rule of Love, into this world of darkness, hatred and fear!
Almighty Father: Jesus, your Son,
Back to top