be sure, the “love” of Jesus for other people is expressed in a number of concrete ways in the other Gospels: in his attention to the poor, the hungry, the crowds, the sick, the demon possessed, and so on. But, for the most part, this expression is compassion for strangers and is never called “love” by the other narrators. Only in the Gospel of John do we have much material that bears on Jesus’ relationship with those people who are close to him, with what we may term “interpersonal” relationships.
In this context, Jesus is said to love other persons. In two cases (13:1; 14:21), Jesus is said to love all his followers. In one case, Jesus is said to love a group of three people: Mary of Bethany, her sister (Martha), and their brother Lazarus (11:5). In two other cases, the reader is told that, in the view of other people, Jesus loved Lazarus (11:3, 36). However, no fewer than five times (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) the reader is told of a (male) disciple who is called simply the one whom Jesus loved.
Clearly then, a consideration of Jesus’ strong personal relationships with other people must begin with an investigation of this relationship, even if we were not using the question, “was Jesus gay?” as a starting point. We should begin here even if we were concerned quite generally with Jesus’ personal relationships or with the issue of Jesus’ erotic attachments to anyone. Of course most people do not begin here, for homophobia and heterosexism conspire to direct attention away from the one person who is explicitly described as Jesus’ beloved.
Because tradition and prejudice have conspired to hide from the reader’s gaze the most obvious candidate for an erotic connection between Jesus and another human being, we have to develop the gay-affirmative reading of this relationship with some care.
In chapter 2, I attempt to show that the texts from the Gospel of John that deal with the disciple Jesus loved may be read quite “naturally” as indicating a homoerotic relationship between Jesus and another man. I seek to show that this reading is the least forced approach to these texts and that such a reading makes the best sense of the text as it stands. Subsequent chapters of part 1 deal with a number of issues that arise from such an interpretation of the text.
In chapter 3, I deal with a question that tradition and scholarship have addressed in this connection, the question of the identity or role of the “disciple Jesus loved.” The chapter reviews a number of possible candidates for this identity and role and enables us to get a sense of the remarkable number of interpersonal relationships that are present in this narrative. No other Gospel provides us with such a wealth of interpersonal detail in the depiction of the life and mission of Jesus. But this multiplicity of interpersonal relationships also makes it difficult to decide the question of the beloved disciple’s identity.
While, in the nature of the case, we often cannot know for sure whether or how a specific erotic relationship is mediated or expressed sexually, we can at least discover whether the context within which such a relationship is reported is one that makes sexual mediation unthinkable or unlikely. In chapter 4, then, I turn to a consideration of the thought world of the Gospel of John to see whether good reasons exist for rejecting the possibility of sexual mediation for this relationship. I argue that they do not.
Because this interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and the man he loved may seem so unprecedented, in chapter 5 I survey some of the ways in which other readers have recognized the erotic character of this relationship.
Finally, in chapter 6, I turn to the question of the theological and ethical significance of the gay-affirmative interpretation of this relationship. I maintain that such an interpretation is helpful not only for gay readers of the Bible but also helps to clarify the nature, and relationship between, human and divine love.
The Texts
Prior to an attempt to interpret the material concerning Jesus and the disciple he loved, a review of the textual materials on which such an interpretation is based is necessary. We begin with a survey of the relevant sections of the Gospel of John.
The first reference to this figure comes in the account of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples. John’s account (John 13–17) is quite extraordinary.1 Unlike the other three “Gospels,” or the brief account we find in Paul (1 Cor. 11:3–26), nothing whatever occurs relating to an institution of the “Last Supper” as a meal to be celebrated by the community following Jesus’ death. Instead, we find Jesus stripping naked and washing the feet of his friends—something that Peter at least regards as quite unseemly.2
The only feature that this account has in common with other accounts of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples is the reference to the imminent betrayal of Jesus by one of the disciples. Precisely in connection with this detail, we encounter for the first time the singling out of one of the disciples as in some special way loved by Jesus.
Saying these things Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified and said: “Amen, Amen, I tell you that one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another being perplexed about whom he speaks. One of his disciples was lying in Jesus’ lap, the one Jesus loved; so Simon Peter nods to this one and says: “Tell, who is he talking about.” That one, falling back on Jesus’ chest says to him: “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answers: “It is the one to whom I will give this morsel when I dip it.” So when he had dipped the morsel he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. (John 13:21–26)3
This text is preceded and followed by the assertion that Jesus loved all the disciples (13:1, 34). Jesus’ farewell discourse to the disciples continues to the end of chapter 17.
Following the long discourse and the account of his arrest, we come to Jesus’ trial. Here we find a passage that, although it does not explicitly refer to the disciple Jesus loved, is sometimes considered as part of the relevant data:
Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. (18:15–16)
Then follows the account of the trial, presumably overheard by both Peter and “another disciple.” After the trial and execution of Jesus we come to the scene at the foot of the cross.
But there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, the sister of his mother, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary the Magdalene. Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said to his mother “Woman, see your son.” Then he says to the disciple, “See your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own. (19:25–27).
The account of Jesus’ death in this text is remarkably unlike that which we encounter in other narratives. After Jesus’ side is pierced, the account concludes with the observation: “And the one who saw has testified and his testimony is true and that one knows that he speaks truly—that you also may believe” (19:35).
A reasonable conjecture, though not explicitly stated, is that “the one who saw” is the one previously identified as the disciple that Jesus loved. But at this point the conjecture rests on the use of the masculine possessive pronoun (his testimony), since the only male witness to the cross identified in the text is the disciple loved by Jesus.
