Commencing part 2, homosexuality in Christianity! Some stuff may be repeated from the last large chunk of text especially if it didn't make it into the video (which was probably due to the recording equipment being buggy yesterday). I originally wanted to talk about gender identity at the same time, but it's much much too big a topic, so instead, have this video to tide you over until I can get around to that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eURhm7Q0Kw------------------------------
So last time, as we discussed, the authors of the Jewish scriptures had very divergent views on Christianity, and this is further obscured by the writings of the post-Temple authors. In the period between the writing of the texts and the destruction of the Temple, the time Christians refer to as the intertestamental period (from around 500 BC to 70 AD), there were several books written but none of them made it into the canon.
The apocryphal writings may not have made it in to the canon, but some of their ideas--and more importantly, what people understood of ancient religious practice through the way those ideas were conveyed--were still important in shaping the later versions of Judaism and Christianity. That being said, the texts do not themselves seem to speak much of homosexuality or homosexual intercourse, although this was certainly a thing that was known to them because they were being ruled by the Greeks for a good part of that time. 1 Macabees, for example, does discuss the gymnasiums--which we know from all sorts of sources were the places where Greek men would gather in the nude to discuss philosophy and business and exercise and solicit sex--and the text discusses people undergoing foreskin lengthening to cover up their being circumcised; but it does not discuss homosexual relationships or homosexual sex, both of which we know were quite common in the Greek civilization. Why the authors did not mention homosexual relationships or homosexual intercourse is a mystery. Maybe they thought that it wasn't a big deal, like perhaps they did not view it as a sin, or perhaps they didn't view it as a big deal compared to the rest of what the Greek rulers were doing to erode their religion; or perhaps they viewed it as common knowledge both that it was a sin and that the Greeks did it, and therefore considered it unimportant to discuss. Whatever the reason, they did not mention homosexuality.
What they did mention was interruptions to their religious practices, like interruptions to sacrifices in the Temple, the outlawing and social stigmatization of circumcision of Jewish boys, and putting pagan idols and sacrifices in Jewish sacred spaces. They also mention frequent slaughters of Jews and oppressive taxes. When sexual debauchery is mentioned, it is heterosexual in nature:
2 Maccabees 6:4
For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with harlots and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit.
[Sidenote: In reading 1 Macabees for research I came across this: 1 Mac. 2:46 "And what children soever they found within the coast of Israel uncircumcised, those they circumcised valiantly." -- Just how does one perform a circumcision "valiantly", exactly? Is that done, like, with a sword?].
Later authors, up to our present times, considered the blanket condemnation of the Greek civilization and the struggle against it by the Macabees a moral struggle against homosexuality, but the texts written during that time do not mention it at all. Googling "Hanukkah gay agenda" will return multiple results of rabbis and Christian preachers discussing the victory of the Macabees against the Greeks, and the subsequent creation of the holiday of Hannukah to commemorate the Macabees, a symbol of the fight against the "homosexual agenda." This makes it very interesting that the texts do not themselves mention homosexuality or homosexual intercourse as a reason why the authors of 1-4 Macabees were angry at the Greeks.
After the destruction of the second temple, the Jewish people had a crisis of faith. This was largely due to the realization that they could no longer conduct the rituals that had been the majority of what the religion was about until that time. Sacrifices in particular were a huge part of the religion, not only because of their relationship with atonement for sin but because they were an integral part of the celebration of festivals and other life events. In Avot D'Rabbi Natan, a midrashic work, it relates the following story:
Once, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was walking with his disciple, Rabbi Y'hoshua, near Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Y'hoshua looked at the Temple ruins and said "Alas for us!! The place that atoned for the sins of the people of Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: 'Be not grieved, my son. There is another equally meritorious way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We can still gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness. For it is written "Loving kindness I desire, not sacrifice." (Hosea 6:6)
This story is a minor indicator of the crisis of faith that occurred at the time, and how it was resolved by the Jewish authors. The way that it was resolved by the authors whose works would become the Christian texts varied enormously. The author of the gospel of Mark, written very soon after the destruction of the Temple, believed that the way that this crisis would be resolved would be through the return and dramatic revelation of the Messiah who would destroy the Romans and instigate a new era, and the book reflects this belief that this was going to happen immediately with verses such as Mark 9:1:
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Matthew and Luke, written after Mark and including Mark's words into their texts, include this same quote in slight variation in Matthew 16:8 and Luke 9:27. The view of Jesus about marriage and childbirth in these texts is that it is something to escape, that it is something you should avoid and abandon because of how soon the world will end. So in Matthew, for example, when Jesus does speak about the brotherhood of believers and their relationship as members of his household, he is not speaking about the kind of love and nurture we are speaking about when we use those terms. Instead he means the relationship of the Pater Familia, the Roman patriarch who is the head of the household in the financial and political sense and the protector of its interests. He uses this language of authority and giving you authority as his representative in Matthew 18:18:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Interestingly within this kind of context if you consider yourself the servant or slave of Jesus, as indeed Paul does, it was perfectly acceptable for the Pater Familia to "sodomize" his slaves. This may not have made it into the text, but in Matthew, Jesus certainly does believe he has ownership of believers' junk. For example he says in Matthew 19:12:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
“Eunuch” does not mean simply being abstinent from sexual activity, it means having deformation or removal of the male sex organ. This command to self mutilate if you wish to receive the true teachings of Jesus is a drastic departure from what most modern Christians view as Christianity, but according to the author of Matthew, this is the true Christian teaching, and anything else is a lie to take you off the right path.
Matthew also quotes Jesus as saying, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” He is literally saying to abandon everyone you love, your entire family, including your wife and kids, to pursue your relationship with him. This is not how modern Christians understand the Bible, but it does seem to be how at least some of the Christian authors did.
Paul also seems to see marriage as a distraction and a necessary evil that should be avoided. For example, he says in 1 Corinthians 7:
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
...
29 But this I say, brethren: the time is short. It remaineth that those who have wives should be as though they had none;
30 and those who weep, as though they wept not; and those who rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those who buy, as though they possessed not;
31 and those who use this world, as not abusing it. For the fashion of this world passeth away.
He seems to be saying here that the world is ending; get married if you must but that's a bad idea, because the world's ending. So within the context of the Pauline epistles, sex, heterosexual or homosexual, seems to be a distraction from the fact that the world is ending and that you should make your preparations for that instead of going around having sex. He seems to believe that celibacy is the most important thing. Paul, however, does not advocate the self harm that Matthew does; he is even against having people circumcised, as the book of Galatians makes clear. In Galatians 5:12, he says that the only people who should be self-mutilating are the ones commanding his followers to become circumcised.
However, not all the Christian text's authors held this view about stopping sexual activity. The last chapter of Hebrews, which seems to have been written later than both the rest of Hebrews and the gospels, moves the idea of the kingdom of God to a spiritual plane instead of happening here on earth, and in so doing, postpones it to a place of repose after death:
Hebrews 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
This chapter also is pro-marriage:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
So in Hebrews 13, because the removal of when and where the kingdom of God will be from very soon, cataclysmically, here on earth, to a celestial plane, it is no longer problematic to marry in this lifetime, and sex and marriage becomes honorable. This goes back to the last discussion about how problematic the choice to be celibate was for the greater society in that time: because of the high rate of child and infant mortality, any girl who lived to the age of 14 statistically had to have 5 pregnancies ending in live birth, otherwise the population would be in a perpetual state of decline. People choosing to forego marriage and childbirth in the belief the world was ending and civilization was doomed could have itself doomed civilization.
The gospel of John, also written relatively late in the evolution of Christianity, also moves everything related to the kingdom of God to a spiritual plane, and was also fairly pro-family. As early as chapter 2, Jesus' teachings about the destruction of the Temple and have been moved to a spiritual plane, with it saying that the Temple is his body and not the Temple in Jerusalem. In chapter 3 in his discussion with Nicodemus, he says that all his teachings are of heavenly or spiritual things, and this is repeated often in the rest of the book. Jesus has also not abandoned his family in this gospel, as he has in the others; his mother is present throughout his ministry, and is at the foot of the cross as he is dying. He also does miracles for people who request them for their family members, instead of telling them to abandon their family as dead to follow him, as it presents him in Matthew.
The gospel of John speaks repeatedly about a disciple whom Jesus loved. In the Christian tradition, this is usually said to be John; but the text's author may have meant for it to be Lazarus, as when Lazarus is sick in John 11, his sisters send word to Jesus to say, “Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick.” His death is a personal tragedy, not just for his sisters, but for Jesus and his disciples; in John 11:16, Thomas says to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” The "him" here may be Jesus, because they believed that Jesus would be stoned to death if he went to Judea, or it may have been Lazarus, because he was so beloved to Jesus and his disciples. Jesus clearly considers the death of Lazarus a tragedy, even though he believes Lazarus will be resurrected, as it says twice that he groaned in spirit, and also says he was troubled and that he wept.
Whether the beloved disciple is John or Lazarus, both are men and the text seems to indicate a very close, very unique relationship between Jesus and this beloved disciple (and, if that is John, with Lazarus). This does seem to be a homo-romantic relationship, whether or not it is a sexual relationship.
In the Questions of Bartholomew, which did not make it into the canon, the beloved disciple is Bartholomew, and Jesus imparts wisdom to him. The book starts after the resurrection of Jesus, and opens with Bartholomew discussing with Jesus how Jesus disappeared from the cross. Jesus says that it is because Bartholomew is beloved that he witnessed this and explains some mysteries to him. Later, Bartholomew and some other disciples decide to ask Mary about the virgin birth; Bartholomew suggests Peter ask, as the leader of the disciples, but Peter says John should ask, as John is himself a virgin. Mary says that a divine being, with a body like an angel but an incomprehensible face, came to her, called her his beloved, and said that in three years, she would conceive a son by which creation would be saved. Then she starts breathing fire, almost ending the world. Jesus imparts more wisdom to Bartholomew and tells Bartholomew he loves him a few more times,
then tells him to tell this message to anyone who can keep it a secret. Then there's this line: "Then I, Bartholomew, which wrote these things in mine heart, took hold on the hand of the lord the lover of men and began to rejoice". So a few interesting things in this book: the term beloved in this book apparently denotes a relationship between a spiritual entity and physical entity in which one party may become pregnant, Bartholomew is beloved of Jesus, and Jesus is a lover of men.
Other Christian texts that contained a more gnostic view and did not make it into the canon, such as the Gospel of Phillip, have a duality of maleness and femaleness, and this belief that marriage is the connection of maleness to femaleness to complete the purpose of the universe and to prevent evil. In the introduction to why marriage is necessary--which is to prevent a spiritual entity from seducing a physical entity and causing hybrid children--the author of the Gospel of Phillip says that Jesus' companion was Mary Magdalene and that Jesus would kiss her on the mouth; this led the Catholic church to slander Mary Magdalene by saying she was a prostitute who Jesus forgave. The fragments we have of the Gospel of Peter also indicate a special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and say that she went to his tomb after the Sabbath because she had not had time before his burial to do "those things which women are accustomed to do unto them that die and are beloved of them".
Another thing of note, not related to the Christian scriptures and apocrypha, is the stories of the lives of early Christians. There is at least one very good example of two men who were very likely lovers, and may have even been married depending on what is the most accurate interpretation of the earliest works depicting them (paintings of them), Saints Sergius and Bacchus. The earliest texts about them say they were both soldiers in the Roman army and were martyred for their faith; however this may have been a story invented about them after they were already popular, and was certainly written after gay marriage had been made illegal by the Christian Roman emperors Constantius II and Constans for debasing the dignity of man, a very Roman idea which as discussed previously had not occurred in previous Jewish texts.
So there is at the very least a mixed set of ideas in the earliest Christian texts, both canonical and non-canonical, about whether a relationship in this world is a good idea; and if so, whether or not that relationship can be between two people of the same gender.
Topic: Homosexual & Transgender Issues In Religion--Comprehensive History