Was Jesus gay?

In an online response to my guest column last Friday, a readerflippantly remarked that The Daily Campus might next publishan article saying that Jesus was gay.

I would be lying if I said that the idea had not crossed my mindmany times as I have tried to reconcile my own sexuality with theteachings of my faith.

But I have never really arrived at a conclusion.

So, this is for you, Will. Was Jesus gay? Many gays would loveit if I said yes.

The truth is, I don’t think about Jesus as having asexuality. As an orthodox, unmarried Jewish man, he was, at best,celibate.

Dr. Theodore W. Jennings Jr., a United Methodist minister,biblical scholar and professor of theology at the ChicagoTheological Seminary has concluded that he probably was gay.

I mention this only to illustrate that serious scholars —indeed ordained ministers within our own university’sreligious affiliation — who possess no apparent bias one wayor the other, have concluded that he might have been gay.

The gospels do speak about the “disciple whom heloved.” But I have no interest, nor the space, in openingthat can of worms here.

In terms of gender, we know that he was a man. But was Jesusgay?

I don’t know. He did possess many traits that today mightbe considered gay.

He was uniquely kind and compassionate. He was a pacifist. Hewas nurturing. He was fatherly, almost avuncular, but he was alsowhat some might consider motherly.

He identified much more with his mother than his father.

He empathized with women more than any Jewish man did at thattime.

He was liberal, probably the most liberal Jew of the period.Everything he did, everyone with whom he associated, and everythinghe said, went against the prevailing social and religiousorder.

What is important, but overlooked by fundamentalists, is thatJesus never spoke to the issue of homosexuality, even whenpresented with the opportunity.

Instead, fundamentalists base their condemnation ofhomosexuality on what Paul said, but even his views on the issueare open to interpretation.

Unfortunately, biblical translators have imposed their ownbiases in the words they chose when translating the Greektexts.

We can, however, infer Jesus’ attitude towardhomosexuality from the story of the Roman centurion’s boyslave.

Having heard of the miracles that Jesus was performing, thecenturion brought his pais (the Greek word used in the firstcentury to refer to boy slaves with whom their masters engaged inpederasty) to Jesus to be healed.

Jesus would certainly have been aware of the practice, which theRomans had inherited from the Greeks.

He would have known about the relationship between the Roman andhis slave, and still he chose to heal him, saying, “Truly, Isay to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

“I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit attable with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom ofheaven…” (Matthew 8:10-11, RSV).

Why did Jesus heal the homosexual slave of a Roman?

If homosexuality were so vile a notion to Jesus, why did he notspeak to it?

Instead, he spoke only to the faith of the Roman soldier.

In effect, he was saying that all who believe, even practicinghomosexuals, will be included in heaven, “while the sons ofthe Kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness…”(Matthew 8:12).

Detractors will disagree with my interpretation of this story;but as a linguist I know that language is the single most definingindicator of a culture.

Matthew would not have chosen the Greek word pais withoutknowing the connotation it carried.

In fact, Matthew even says “to whom he wasprecious,” referring to the love that the Roman felt for theyoung boy. Instead of pais, he could have chosen doulos (theGreek word for slave), but he did not.

Translators have chosen, unfortunately, to use the word slave orservant, thus depriving the modern reader of the true meaning ofthe text.

So, was Jesus gay? Honestly, my intention here has not been topersuade you one way or the other, but rather to encourage you touse the tools that universities such as SMU provide you and lookfor answers yourself on those things you find important.

Finally, if I may leave you with one caveat:

Before arriving at a conclusion on any translated work, theBible included, consider the words used in the original texts andtheir meanings relative to the time and culture in which they wereused.

Do not allow your reading to be colored by a translation that iscorrupted by the bias(es) of the translator.

George Henson is a professor of Spanish in the Department ofForeign Languages and Literatures. He may be reached [email protected].