Man Jesus Loved by T Jennings - Essay Example

Book review Running head: MAN JESUS LOVED BY T. JENNINGS Book review: Man Jesus Loved by T. Jennings Write here Write the of the institution here The Author of “The man Jesus loved: homoerotic narratives from the New Testament”, Theodore Jennings Jr., Ph.D. is a professor of biblical and constructive theology at Chicago Theological seminary and is United Methodist clergyman. Jennings has serious academic qualifications and maintains a scholarly tone throughout the book. “The man Jesus Loved” is a scholarly and thoroughly non-sensational study of same-sex love in the context of the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels. A tradition about Jesus loving another man, (The Beloved Disciple), passionately and faithfully is being explored and supported with scriptures and many sound observations. The reader is taken through an informed close reading of various gospels, revealing multiple interpretations. Jennings patiently and expertly unpacks a First-century social and political milieu, offering a full-bodied view of a fully-inclusive Jesus whose ministry spoke to all people, including the marginalized, then as now. Instead of focusing on Biblical texts that seem to condemn homosexuality, professor Jennings ha chosen to: “focus attention on texts that have been largely ignored in the discussion, above all… the relationship between Jesus and the man identified as the disciple Jesus loved in the Fourth Gospel”. The book examines the Gospels of Matthew; mark and Luke as well as other texts from the same time in history with similar questions about what they might indicate about how Jesus related to other people’s sexuality, to gender roles and to what are called marriage and family values. Jennings declares that his purpose is to make ‘gay reading” of the Scriptures, offering a more inclusive vision of Jesus. The book is divided into three parts. In the first, most valuable part, Jesus, we are told in the Gospel of John, had a special friend, though that man is never named. And during the last supper this Beloved Disciple rested his head on Jesus’ chest in an obvious sign of physical affection. Jennings reviews various attempts to identify the Beloved Disciple and goes into the stories of nude youth fleeing at the arrest of Jesus, of Lazarus, of the youth at the tomb of Jesus, and of the usage of the words ‘eros’ vs. ‘philia’ vs. ‘agape’ in the text .One of the issues addressed at length in the book’s first section is the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The Gospels give few details of the relationships between Jesus and his followers, and Jennings considers as candidates for who the Beloved Disciple was Peter’s brother Andrew, Nathaniel, Philip, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Lazarus. Jennings even considers that the Beloved Disciple might not be a person at all, but rather a symbol for the Church. Curiously, Jennings rejects the tradition of very long standing that John the Apostle is the Beloved Disciple and opts for Lazarus. However, in one of the chapters entitled “the Hidden Tradition”, it turns out there has been a longstanding tradition that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. Jesus. “In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved”. In Jennings opinion one might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way, thus to identify Jesus’ love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was “the” beloved. During the last supper before Jesus’ execution the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the “beloved” disciple laid himself on Jesus’ inner tunic—his undergarment, (John 13:25 and 21:20). The Gospel references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” use the word “agape” (Koine Greek – the language in which the Gospels were written), and it means: spiritual, unconditioned love. While “eros” : erotic love ; “philia” : love between friend’s ad “storge” : family love. Whether the authors originally used “eros” was subsequently changed is open to speculation. According to Jennings the possibility Jesus was homosexual cannot be ruled out. One version of St. Mark’s Gospel –which however is still a subject of academic dispute- alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead. A fragment of manuscript found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark’s Gospel , Chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage: “And the youth looking upon him (Jesus), loved and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”. Nevertheless, the precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. His youth, The Beloved Disciple, is identified as Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the man Jesus raised from the dead. Much of the argument is based on John 11:1-3, which says that as Lazarus lay sick, the sisters sent word for Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick”. John 11:5 and 11:36 also say that Jesus loved Lazarus. The Gospel of John never mentions Lazarus by name after Chapter 12, and it first mentions the Beloved Disciple in Chapter 13. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated. Jennings states in Chapter 14, entitled “Was Jesus Gay?”, that the difference of time and culture mean that no answer can actually be given to that question. What the readers can do is try to let go of stereotypes and pre-conceptions to “attend to the text, and follow where it leads”. If Jesus and the beloved disciple were merely good friends and not lovers, then Jesus; words to his mother and the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross do not make sense, argues Jennings. (Jesus presumably 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. 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 in the most literal and least tortured interpretation of the scene at the foot of the cross, says Jennings. Another case is found in one of the scenes 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 good friends? 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 explanations, Jennings argues convincing by, is that their relationship is one between lovers. However, readers should not 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. Jennings warns that readers should be careful about misreading readers’ own culturally conditioned assumptions about modern homosexual identities into the Bible. Yet, he also insists we should also avoid reading heterosexism and homophobia into the Bible when it isn’t there. The second section of the book, “The Jesus tradition” presents analyses of a number of familiar New testament incidents which are incompatible with an homoerotic interpretation. An example is the story of the Roman officer who asks for a miracle of healing for a boy who is dear to him. This example of Jesus attitude towards a same-sex couple is described in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2. Scholars of both scripture and Ancient History can tell that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male salve to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships… Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! It is not clear whether this boy is a son, a servant or a boyfriend, what is clear is that there is some ambiguity. Now Jesus’ good will toward homosexuals may not be the point of that story, but maybe it is. The suggestion that it could be is indicative of the real character of Jesus. Jennings also points out the story of the “rich young man” who come to Jesus but did not follow because Jesus asked him to give up all his belongings. A detail seldom noticed is that the gospel says :” Jesus gazed on him, and loved him.” That rich young man and the Beloved disciple are the only people the Scriptures say Jesus actually “loved” personally. The third section of the book analyses Jesus’ attitudes towards the family. If Jennings is intentionally flouting the Fundamental Christians with the suggestion Jesus was at least soft on homosexuals, if not homosexual himself, he really goes after them by reading the Scripture to show how un-family values-like Jesus’ teachings were. Jesus, after all, was reacting to a religion that taught that personal value lay in tribal and family membership; Jesus said no, a person’s value is determined by how lovingly they behave and by what they believe in, not by who their relatives are, how many children they have , or how successful the children turn out. “Family values” today means a wide range of things (including shame about sex, because parents are embarrassed about sex in front of their children.) It also includes the tenet that salvation comes from being a good parent and giving birth to a new generation. Spiritual religion, on the other hand, tends to demand more. A person is supposed to believe in the goodness of love and to be loving to others beyond his or her immediate relatives. Parenthood alone isn’t enough. Jesus was calling people to something beyond normalcy. Jesus certainly challenged the patriarchal dominance, of the religion of his day, and ironically, of the religion that has taken his name. Jesus wanted to convert traditional family values to a situation where everyone cares about everyone else and all have a direct connection to God. Jesus supported and included women on largely equal basis with man. Jesus wanted people to break their dependence on family and the accumulation of wealth and power instead to treat each other well and to do good. This includes treating women as equals, being able to accept various sexual orientations, and not condemning sex itself. Traditional morality is mostly focused on preserving property rights and amassing wealth, the original position of Jesus movement was different. Although theology and Biblical research can be a slow slog to read Jennings writes well enough to keep up one’s interest. Not only Jennings used the Scriptures for research for the book, he also looks at the treatment of these Biblical texts in various times in the history of the church from British Abbott Aelred of Rievaulx in the 12th Century through the Renaissance up to the present, to show that this question of the relationship of Jesus and “The Man Jesus Loved” (John 13:23) has been considers many times. Jennings provides a reading of Biblical texts that supports and celebrates same-sex love to counter the constant drumbeat of condemnation of homosexual people, their relationships and families. Jennings understands the primary message of the Bible as invitation to all people to become faithful to Jesus. Jesus ate and drank with sinners, formed communities of love as an alternative to institutions that entrap and condemn, and confronted both religious and secular institutions that control and manipulate people with fear and violence. Even though the book can be a bit slow-going at times, anyone who believes that the Christ could have been a man of homosexual orientation in his human form should read the book. Jennings’ conclusion is that he cannot conclude with certainty. This does not mean, however, that the quest, in and of itself, was not an exciting one. That is the most engaging thing about this book, it leaves no stone unturned, it takes a holistic view of the New Testament teachings on sexuality, specifically their homoerotic dimensions, and it builds a solid case for a man-loving Jesus. Jennings concludes that “… The least forced reading of the texts that deal with the man Jesus loved is one which understands this relationship as one of physical and emotional intimacy, and ... nothing in the text in any way precludes the sexual meditation of this relationship.” As for the question: Was Jesus homosexual? The author declares: “… The question framed like this admits of no simple answer… any conclusion about the sexual experience or practice of particular individuals in antiquity must in the nature of the case be inferential and tentative…” But the possibility is there. References: 1. Theodore W., Jr. Jennings (2003); Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament; New York, Pilgrim press 2. Holy Bible, Gospel of John ( Chapter 11:1-3; 11:5; 11:36) 3. Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 8:5-13) 4. Holy Bible, Gospel of Luke (Chapter 7:2) Read More